Short Wave - Science In 2025 Took A Hit. What Does It Mean?

Episode Date: December 31, 2025

Science in the United States took some big hits this year. The Trump Administration disrupted federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits. Administration officials say those changes were a step towards reinvigorating federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health. But many scientists disagree. NPR health and science correspondents Rob Stein and Katia Riddle chat with host Emily Kwong about what these cuts could mean for the future of science.Interested in more stories on the future of science? Email us your question at [e-mail] to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Hey everyone, Emily Kwong here. Just a word before today's episode. 2025 is almost over. And at NPR and our local stations, we are excited to begin a new year. This year was tough. The loss of federal funding for public media, attacks on the free press. But despite it all, we are not shying away from our jobs. From exercising the critical right to editorial independence guaranteed by the First Amendment. With your support, we will continue our work without fear or favor. and we will continue to produce a show that introduces you to new discoveries, everyday mysteries, and explains the science behind the headlines.

If you're already an NPR Plus supporter, thank you. And if you're not a supporter, please become one today, before the end of the year, at least, at plus.npr.org. Sign up to unlock a bunch of perks like bonus episodes and more from across NPR's podcast. Plus, you get to feel good about supporting public media while you listen. So end the year on a high note and invest in a public service that. matters to you. Visit plus.npr.org today. Thank you. You're listening to Shortwave from NPR. It is the end of the year, and if we are taking stock of winners and losers in 2025, science is definitely on the loser list.

The Trump administration disrupted federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits, and to talk about the implications of those cuts I've brought in NPR Health and Science Correspondence, Rob Stein, and Katie Riddle. Hey to you both. Hi. Hi. Okay, where do you want to start? Well, in the spirit of kicking stock, I think it's only fitting that we start with a little history of science in America. All right. Starting with World War II because World War II really was a turning point in our investment in science. Cool. How so? So at the turn of the 20th century, there really wasn't necessarily a marriage between science and government. But that changed around the time, like you said, of World War II. As part of that war effort, the U.S. place. money into scientific research, and it led to advancements like penicillin becoming widely available and the development of the first nuclear weapons. I talked to this historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Patrick McCrae. He gives a lot of the credit for our existing system to one man, Venever Bush. In July 1945, it was a pivotal moment in World War II. Bush wrote a

report saying that science could set the U.S. on a path to prosperity. Health economy and national security. Those are the three main things that, you know, science provided for us after 1945. And those not surprisingly were the three main things that Bush argued for in his report that science would provide. And now the U.S. is the biggest investor in research and development in the world. This investment has led to tremendous breakthroughs like the foundation for the Internet. genetic medicine. Yeah. But now, of course, the country's commitment to science is very much in doubt because of, in this last year, we've seen thousands of layoffs, billions of dollars in research being disrupted. Yeah. And you know, Emily, many of the people who Kadia and I talk to for this reporting express grave concerns that this grand American scientific experiment is suffering irreparable damage. Here's Bruce Alberts from the University of California, San Francisco. He ran the National Academy of Sciences for more than a decade.

It's very tragic and it's very distressing for everybody cares about the future of our country. And for all those who care about U.S. prosperity and U.S. leadership in the world, it's just shooting ourselves in the foot. Today on the show, why it has felt like a real bah humbug year for many scientists. We take a tour of U.S.-based science institutions to understand how policies have affected them and what that means for our future. You're listening to Shortwave, the science podcast from NPR. Okay, Rob, so you report on the National Institutes of Health. I do indeed. Yes, the NIH, which is the largest public funder of biomedical science in the world.

That's the one. Can you bring us up to date on what has happened at the NIH this year? Yeah, absolutely. It's been a tumultuous, traumatic year, not just for scientists at the NIH itself, but also for many of the thousands of scientists around the world whose work lives and dies on NIH funding. Right, because the NIH, while based in the U.S., funds science and scientists all over the world. That's right. And the NIH staff of about 20,000 was cut by thousands.

Many of those left behind are frightened, angry, and demoralized, and billions of dollars in grants to study everything from, you know, vaccines and infectious diseases to diabetes and cancer have been terminated or thrown into chaos. How's the staff at the NIH coping with this, the ones who are still there? It's been rough. To give you a little sense of that, let me introduce you to Sylvia Joe. She manages grants at the National Cancer Institute. She told me about getting anonymous internal emails that were terminating research just because it might mention something that sounds like diversity, equity, and inclusion. You know, DEI.

Yeah. She's not speaking on behalf of the agency here. What we call drone attacks coming from above. You know, no names, no email address. There's no human, accountable human being that we know of. So to have this just like attack from above, it's just absolutely soul crushing. So that's why I eventually made the decision to leave. I just, you know, can't take it anymore.

So she's leaving the NIH next month after 18 years. Wow. Yeah, that sounds incredibly tumultuous. Yeah. What does the rest of the medical world think about what's happening at the NIH? Yeah. So I put that question to Dr. Francis Collins. He ran the NIH for more than a dozen years through Democratic and Republican administrations.

What was done this year was basically move fast and break things without a whole lot of interest in what the consequences might be. I just find it heartbreaking. And that's a pretty widely held view. Well, Rob, thank you for that window into the NIH. Turning to you, Katie, you have covered some other significant federal agencies this year like NOAA and NASA. where else has science been disrupted under this administration? I think it's safe to say that the chaos and tumult that Rob is describing, that has been widespread across nearly every federal agency that is engaged in science.

The National Science Foundation, NOAA, like you said, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Even the Department of Veterans Affairs has seen studies disrupted, major research projects put into limbo, staffing freezes, and ongoing funding uncertainty. At NSF alone, there were more than 1,500 grants canceled, many of them projects related to DEI that represented more than $1 billion in lost funding. Besides the cuts, I mean, the loss of resources, what will this do to science? One thing I heard a lot of scientists say is that they are very concerned about the lasting impact on the next generation of scientists. One woman I talked to earlier this year is Fran Baganel. She's an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado.

She works on a NASA mission called Juno, studying Jupiter. At the time I talked to her, she was uncertain if it would continue to be funded. And she says that when the federal government isn't prioritizing science or doesn't seem excited about it, that impacts this next generation of scientists in America as well. I know it may not seem like a direct connection, but it is, in fact, huge that space exploration inspires. and motivates people to do their math, homework, and do their physics and move into technical areas. And what does the Trump administration have to say about all of this? Did you reach out to them?

Yeah. So, Emily, I got some comments about that. Okay, what they say? Administration officials say the nation's scientific institutions, including medical and public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and yes, even the NIH desperately need shaking up. I talked about this with Dr. J. Badacharya. He's the NIH director. Let me kind of lay out this argument for you, and then I'll tap in Kadia for how other scientists feel about his talking points.

Okay. Yeah. What did Dr. Bartatariya say? He told me he knows morale has suffered, but he argues he's turned that around and is reinvigorating the NIH. Some changes have happened at the NIH, which I think were long overdue. Changes to change the culture of the NIH to fund more innovative science, be less risk-averse in the portfolio of scientific. for projects we fund. Because life expectancy in this country has been flatlined since 2010. The research ideas that we've had, I mean, there are a lot of amazing innovations, but they have

not translated it over to better health for Americans. Wait, so is the standard of success he's looking for for the NIH increased longevity? Yeah, that is a talking point that many members of this administration have been making that the basically federal health agencies have failed the American public because of our, you know, chronic conditions that have plagued Americans for generations now. And he chafes at suggestions that the White House or Health and Human Services Secretary Robert of Kennedy Jr. have politicized the NIH. Secretary Kennedy has not asked me to put my thumb on the scales of any scientific project to say, you must have the scientific project come out this way or that way. I think that would be a red

line. I have not seen that from Secretary Kennedy or the president. Dr. Bartacharya argues that the U.S. remains a biomedical beacon for the rest of the world. I think the future is bright. I mean, there's still no better place on Earth to do biomedical science. If you're a young scientist in this country, this is still by far the very best place on earth to do science. Okay, so that is the administration's perspective. What do you hear from young scientists, Katie? Like, do they agree that the U.S. is still the best place to do science and to grow their careers? A lot of the scientists I talk to do not. I spoke with one young scientist named Brandon Coventry, and he is not sure. He grew up here in a small town in Illinois. He's

now at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. By training, I'm an electrical engineer, and I got my PhD within, like, a combined bit of neuroscience and then neural interfacing with how we integrate with external devices with the brain. Sounds like he does cool work. Yeah, and he is a recipient of grant funding from NIH. The work he does could help people with diseases like Parkinson's and epilepsy. Recently, some of his funding was revoked. And Brandon is at a pivotal place in his career.

He's looking to start his own lab, take a tenure track position somewhere, and really put down roots. He says after watching what's happened this year, he doesn't trust that the United States is going to be a sustainable place to do science. And we've lost that sort of pipeline and certainty of the pipeline that's really been a staple, irregardless of what administration has been in office. Like, this is the first time where that's just been out of whack. So what's he doing now? He's considering leaving the country, possibly for Canada or somewhere else. He says this is something he hears from many of his peers as well. If I move, that's permanent.

And at this point, I'm 100% willing to do that because, like, I think for many of us, this is a calling to make the world a better place. And we would love to do that in our homes. But we're going to go to places where we can do that. Brandon says even if the money spigot is turned back on in a future administration, it's going to take more than that to rebuild his faith in the system. Okay, so this goes beyond really one single person's career. This has to do with the whole enterprise of science in the U.S. Absolutely, Emily. The bigger question is whether the trust in this grand bargain that made America the greatest scientific powerhouse has been fractured beyond repair. There's talk about even deeper cuts to funding at NIH and other federal agencies.

so 2026 could be yet another year of chaos in science in America. Rob Stein and Katie Riddle, thank you so much for coming on the show. You are fonts of knowledge, and I appreciate you taking the time. Of course. Nice to be here. Thank you. No matter what happens to science, Shortwave will be with you in 26. If you liked this episode, follow us on the app you're listening to,

or the NPR app. Check it out if you haven't downloaded it already. This episode was produced by Rachel Carlson and NPR. edited by Amina Khan, Scott Hensley, and our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. Quasi Lee was the audio engineer. Beth Donovan is our vice president of podcasting strategy. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Shortwave from NPR.

See you in the New Year.