Science Friday - What Huge Cuts To NSF Funding Mean For Science

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Grant funding by the National Science Foundation has been cut by more than half this year, bringing the foundation’s science funding to its lowest level in decades. Katrina Miller, who covers science for the New York Times, joins Host Flora Lichtman to unpack the cutbacks and discuss where the funding changes might lead.And, the FDA has cleared a blood test to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. The first-of-its-kind test measures the levels of amyloid and tau proteins in a patient’s blood, two major biomarkers of the disease. Alzheimer’s researcher Jason Karlawish joins Flora to explain this new diagnostic tool and what it means for patients.Guests:Katrina Miller is a science reporter for The New York Times based in Chicago.Dr. Jason Karlawish is a professor of medicine, medical ethics and health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, and co-director of the Penn Memory Center, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Flor Lichtman. One of the signature moves of the current presidential administration is widespread cuts to departments and programs that, in the government's view, do not align with current administration priorities. This has been especially noticeable in areas like public health, global aid, and science. Grants funded by the National Science Foundation this year are less than half of what they have been in previous years. its lowest funding level in decades. Here to tell us more is Katrina Miller, a science reporter for the New York Times. Welcome to Science Friday. Hi, happy to be here.

You've written a lot about these cuts to science funding, especially at the NSF. Let's start with the big picture view. Yeah, so the National Science Foundation is one of the largest funders of scientific research in the United States. And since the Trump administration took office, the NSF has undergone a flurry of changes in attempt to comply with its new policies and priorities. And much of that change has amounted to very sharp cuts in funding at the agency. More than 1,600 active research grants have been cut short. So that's about $1.4 billion of funding.

And the NSF is now awarding new grants at its slowest pace this year in more than three decades. This week, 16 states brought a lawsuit challenging these cuts. Tell us about it. So on Wednesday, a group of attorney generals across the U.S. sued the NSF for, one, terminating grants related to broadening participation of marginalized groups in STEM, but also for attempting to implement a 15% cost cap on indirect research expenses. That covers things like keeping lab spaces clean, keeping them maintained, administrative work, pretty much any other cost that's not directly related to the goal of the scientific project itself. We reached out to the NSF about this

most recent lawsuit for our coverage of it this week, but they declined to comment. What's the legal basis for the challenge? So since at least the 1980s, Congress has directed the National Science Foundation to support activities that brought in the participation of women and minorities in STEM. That has been expanded significantly to include people with disabilities as well. And so the basic premise of the lawsuit is that the National Science Foundation by defunding and deprioritizing activities related to diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI are going against mandated directives by Congress. Initially, a lot of the administration's cuts seemed aimed at things that the administration felt were connected to DEI efforts. Is that still the case? So the NSF is made up of eight directorts, which oversee research in different fields.

So that's biosciences, geosciences engineering, to name a few. And across the board, all of the directorts are experiencing grant cancellations, as well as a decline in new grant funding, but to varying degrees. There is a crowdsourced online database called Grant Watch that has been tracking canceled NSF grants for some weeks now. And the agency very recently published an official list of what has. has been terminated. And if you look at that list at face value, the majority of grants being affected seem to have some relation to DEI. Overwhelmingly, the direct tort that's getting hit the hardest is STEM education, which represents nearly 75% of the total dollar amount of cuts.

And experts who I've spoken with say that this focus is part of a broader attack on education as a whole because of the way education research, particularly in STEM, aims to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in student learning. And are we talking about not awarding money going forward or actually cutting off grants that are in progress now? Right. So these are active research grants that are getting cut. Some were, you know, just awarded and about to take off. Others were stopped mid-project or toward the end of the work very abruptly with little time to wrap things up. And there's also, in addition, a slowing of new awards being funded. The reports done by my colleagues concluded that the NSF is awarding new grants at its slowest pace in 35 years.

Who is actually making the decisions about which grants get caught and which ones get greenlit and the slowing piece? It's hazy. So soon after the Trump administration took office, the NSF began an agency-wide review of active research awards that contain buzzwords that were commonly associated with DEI. So, woman, institutional, equal opportunity, bias, and other words were on that list. Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, did not visit the NSF until April. And shortly after NSF came out with a statement saying it was deprioritizing DEI efforts in favor of opportunities for all Americans everywhere, then the grant cancellations began. staff firings ensued, the NSF director resigned. So there have been a lot of changes that have occurred immediately after Doge set up shop at the NSF,

but to my knowledge, nothing has been confirmed by the agency at least that Doge is the one who is driving those changes. Meaning it would be NSF employees. Yes. What's your take on the departure of the NSF director? So I read his statement. He did not say much about the changes. that have happened at the agency since the Trump administration took office. He did mention that science in the United States must not lose its competitive edge, and that's the closest he came to

addressing a lot of the criticism that he has faced for not speaking out or advocating for his staff that have been laid off or for the researchers who are impacted by the funding cuts at the agency. In your colleague's analysis, were there any areas of, of, science that have gotten more funding since this administration has come into place? Yes. There were a few research areas that saw an increased amount of new grants in 2025. Advanced cyber infrastructure was one of them. They've been awarded double the funding by the NSF event. It typically receives this far into the year. So that includes support for things like AI and high performance computing. Also funding for behavioral and cognitive sciences has increased

as well as ocean sciences and technology workforce development. NSF said in a statement that it would continue to focus on areas of science that the Trump administration particularly named as a priority, so artificial intelligence, quantum, nuclear, et cetera, but that it remains committed to funding all types of scientific research. How did these cuts and the slowdown in new grants? How does this fit in with the ongoing budget process that we're reading about? And does this mean that more cuts are on the table?

I think scientists are anticipating more funding cuts of active research awards at the National Science Foundation. The Trump administration dropped its skinny budget early in May, and it proposed large cuts to many scientific agencies across the federal government. They want to slash the budget of the NSF in particular by 56%. But that's just a proposal, right? So it has to go through Congress. It will likely undergo changes. And in the meantime, scientists just have to wait and see. What are the scientists that you're talking to telling you about the situation on the ground?

How is this changing research right now? People are really scared at the way the American system of science seems to be unraveling so quickly. I think that's especially true for early career folks who are obviously concerned about their ability to pursue an academic. career in the fields they've chosen. If there is no chance at getting funding in a particular field, it can become very difficult to earn tenure in said field. That means that you have more students thinking about making the pivot into industry. A lot of reports have also surfaced about the beginnings of brain drain, where American scientists are looking outside of the U.S. to continue their careers. And also immigrant scientists who have come here to work

are thinking about leaving. We've seen other countries, particularly in Europe, try to capitalize on this trend. And then scientists are also mobilizing, right? So they're tracking these changes. They're in the streets protesting, calling their representatives, doing more outreach with the public to get across the importance of science. Back in March, a coalition called Stand Up for Science organized a national protest. And recently they've announced a summer fight for science ahead of Congress voting on the federal budget. There was a stand-up for science, a version of this when Trump took office the first time, I believe. Does it seem different now? I think the main difference is that during the first Trump administration, the March for Science represented a shift for many scientists. It was their first time

sort of stepping into political action. There was a lot of discourse about whether scientists should be, doing things like activism in the streets or if their role was better served in the lab, in the office. This time, I think that conversation is changed because so many more scientists are being directly affected by the policies and the priorities of the Trump administration. So it is something that many people who maybe could have ignored the way that Trump was shifting the United States in his first administration can no longer because it's directly affecting now their own careers. It's not abstract anymore. Yes, exactly.

While we have you, you know, I know you report on space and physics. Are you working on any stories right now that, you know, make the case for why we should be funding science? What is at the forefront of my mind right now is the Veri-Rubin Observatory that is approaching its first look. it's going to release its first images sometime in June. That observatory is going to take a motion picture of the night sky about every three days. Is that a big deal? It's a huge deal. It's a huge deal. I mean, it's a plethora of data. It is going to help scientists answer questions about dark energy and dark matter and why the universe is structured the way it is and why galaxies form. the way they do. And so scientists are really excited about that. I think that a lot of these

scientific questions seem very far away from, you know, problems that are happening on the ground. But I think that the importance of basic research, research that does not have direct application to society or political interest historically has been shown to you. end up becoming very beneficial in ways that we may not have been able to predict. It's also, these are the most profound questions that we can tackle, that we can think about. They make our life better in that way too. Yeah, I think, you know, there's, everyone at some point has asked some form of question of why we are here. And sometimes it's really, it's really fascinating to just immerse yourself in the

the way that astronomers and people who study the night sky are answering that question. Thank you, Katrina. Thank you so much. Katrina Miller, science reporter for the New York Times. She's based in Chicago. After the break, a new blood test to diagnose Alzheimer's. Just how big of a deal is it? This is big.

Don't go away. And now a bit of good news. The FDA has approved a blood test to diagnose Alzheimer's disease. It's the first of its kind, and it measures the levels of amyloid and tau proteins in a patient's blood, two major biomarkers of the disease. The test is approved for patients over 55 who are experiencing cognitive impairments. Until now, getting an official Alzheimer's diagnosis was costly and out of reach for many patients. So here to tell us more about this diagnostic and what it means for patients is Dr. Jason Carlowish, professor of medicine, medical ethics and health policy and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania's Perlman School of Medicine and co-director of the Penn Memory Center based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Jason, welcome back to Science Friday. Great to be here. Hey, Flora. Will you put this in context for us? How big of a deal is this new blood test? This is big. It's revolutionary, and I like that word.

It's a word, you know, maybe it's a little overused in science. Everything's a revolution, just like every kid's an honor student. But this truly is revolutionary. Why? Why is it revolutionary? Well, once upon a time, but not too long ago, a diagnosis of the cause of a person's dementia was hedged with awful uncertainties, you know, probable Alzheimer's. And the answer could only occur until you died. And then the pathologist would get all the brain tissue, slice it up and say,

this is what I'm seeing. It was kind of gruesome, you know, and no wonder people, you know, kind of avoided seeing me, perhaps, because if you can't tell me really what's wrong, what's the point of seeing you? I disagreed with that then. I still do now. But these tests suddenly, say, allow me within a matter of days after presentation at the Penn Memory Center to tell a patient the cause of your cognitive impairments is Alzheimer's disease or is not Alzheimer's disease. That's huge. That was, I was not doing that a year ago. That's amazing. I mean, what is the blood test measuring exactly? Yeah, so the blood test measures a fragment of the tau protein that is broken off and is in the blood. And the tau protein is one of the components of what we call the tau tangles

that are one of the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer's. The test also measures a fragment of the beta amyloid protein, which is another one of the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer's. And we can measured in blood and then made into a little ratio, which kind of takes out some of the noise that occur inherently in all these measures. You can set a cut point that gives a clinician such as myself decent confidence that, you know, this patient's brain contains levels of amyloid protein and tau protein that are consistent with the pathologic presentation of Alzheimer's. It's a test for pathology. It's not a test for dementia. Explain that distinction. It's a test to say something has happened in your brain, but not the effects of what those changes are. Exactly, exactly.

And, you know, a very important point you made was this is a test for people who have cognitive impairment that now needs an explanation. When many people think about Alzheimer's, they think, oh, you mean dementia. And when I think of Alzheimer's, I think of no, the pathology that can cause dementia, just like Louis Body Pathology causes Louis Body Disease, et cetera. And this test measures the pathologies that explain why a person has cognitive impairment. And so it's not the test that you start with. When I see you in the clinic at the memory center, the test I would start with would be detailed history and exam to determine whether there is cognitive impairment, and if there is, is Alzheimer's in the differential, and if it is, I would might order this test, of course,

after we talk about it. Could a test like this measure how far along someone is, like the progression of the disease? Yeah, great question. And that's like the next thing that we need to develop great tests for. And this test is a start in that space. The test that we also need to sort of develop in the clinic is just what you described. which is I get a sense of how severe the pathology is in your brain. Now, my colleagues and I are beginning to look at ways to measure the tau burden in a brain

because tau burden really is the marker of sort of how far along the disease is. Having said that, the way this test is being used and analyzed is the detection of the pathology, not how far along it is, except that it's far enough along to cause cognitive impairment. In other words, disabilities of daily life because of the problem. troubles with memory, language, tension, et cetera. If you can diagnose with more certainty, does that open any different treatment options? It does. It does. And I'm glad that we held off on jumping to treatment, like, you know, diving to dessert. And I'm glad to be in first eight RPs because, you know, you need a diagnosis

before treatment. And treatment is why people come to see me when they're worried about Alzheimer's, because I now have at least two treatments that target one of the pathologies in Alzheimer's. But I want to emphasize diagnosis alone is very valuable to explain what's going on and what to expect in the future. Now we're at the heart of one of the very promising aspects of this diagnostic test, which is if you do have Alzheimer's disease and you are at a stage of the disease in its clinical severity that is either mild cognitive impairment or mild stage dementia, you are now a candidate potentially for therapies that target amyloid and have been shown, approved by FDA, to slow down the pace of the disease. And so this test is an entry, not just to diagnosis, but also to

treatment. Do you expect we're going to see other tests for neurodegenerative diseases? You know, now that we have this one, does it open up? Oh, yeah. This is shot heard around the world. I mean, we should anticipate a time when the mind is thoroughly measured in some sense. And that's a bit of a rhetorical overstatement. But imagine a time when I can tell you, you whether there's diseases in your brain that can cause damage to your neurons that affects certain regions of your brain. And I can do other tests that tell you where in your brain the neurons are being damaged, not just the macroscopic level of, you know, atrophy seen on MRI, but the microscopic level. And so I can really begin to explain what's wrong and what

will go wrong with your brain. That's a profound change. That is a very profound change. We have to anticipate that in the coming years, decades, we're going to arrive at that for neurodegenerative diseases. I think that's the perfect place to leave it. Thank you so much for joining us today. Well, you're welcome. Flores, a lot of fun. Dr. Jason Carlowish, professor of medicine, medical ethics, and health policy and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania's Pearlman School of Medicine and co-director of the Penn Memory Center based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Before we go, do you have an AI friend? or a social relationship with the chatbot.

What do you talk about? Do you get something from them you can't get from a human? Call us and tell us about it, 8774 SciFRI, 8774 SciFRI. And that is about all we have time for. Lots of folks helped make the show happen, including... Dee Petersman.

Praise a Goochie. Kathleen Davis. Santiago Flores. I'm Flore Lichtman. Thanks for listening.