Unexplainable - Why I left the NIH

Episode Date: June 18, 2025

Francis Collins oversaw some of the most revolutionary science of the last few decades at the National Institutes of Health. A few months ago, he suddenly resigned. One of America's foremost scientists could no longer do his job. What does that mean for the US? And for science? Guest: Francis Collins, former director of the NIH For show transcripts, go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/unxtranscripts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ For more, go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/unexplainable⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ And please email us! ⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠ We read every email. Support Unexplainable (and get ad-free episodes) by becoming a Vox Member today: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/members⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us plan for the future of Unexplainable by filling out a brief survey: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠voxmedia.com/survey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thank you! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, I'm Matt Bouchelle, comedian, writer, and floating head you may or may not have seen on your FYP. And I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, don't swipe away. It's called, That Sounds Like a Lot. You know that feeling when you check your phone, read a few headlines and think, that sounds like a lot. I can't do this. Well, I can, and I'm going to get into it every Friday. You can watch on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcast. I'm going to start by breaking down whatever insanity is happening in the world. And then I'll sit down with a comedian or actor or writer or, honestly, anyone who responds to my DMs. This is not the place to get the news, but it is a place to get the news. to feel a little bit better about it.

That sounds like a lot. Coming May 1st, part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. One, two. Okay, good to go. A couple weeks ago, I called up this scientist I've been wanting to talk to for a long time. I've particularly been struck by your writing because it feels like it

encapsulates the mission of Unexplainable, of our show. Like, we're all about leaning into the things we don't know, you know, the importance of uncertainty and humility in science. I think you got it right. Science is pursuing the unexplainable, trying to explain it. And sometimes we succeed, and sometimes, that hypothesis wasn't right.

Let's try something else. Francis Collins is easily one of the most important scientists of the last few decades. He led the Human Genome Project, which won him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was the director of the National Institutes of Health under three presidents. and he led the NIH's work on developing the COVID vaccine,

which saved millions of lives. But the reason I wanted to talk to Francis right now is because of the chaos that's been going on at the NIH. I've been hearing about cuts, about firings, about grants not getting funded, and I wanted to talk to someone on the inside, someone who's worked under this version of Trump and the previous one.

I was, after all, the NIH director, during Trump's presidency number one, reported to him in various ways, especially during the really serious tumult of COVID-19 in 2020. To be honest, I wasn't sure exactly what he was going to say. I thought, you know, if he could make the COVID vaccine under Trump's watch five years ago, maybe he knows something I don't about what's really going on.

Well, I had experienced transitions before where things that one administration wanted to do, another one did not. And those were bumpy sometimes. I was kind of used to that, but I didn't expect science to be under this kind of full bore attack, which is really what happened almost immediately after inauguration day. Francis says it started in his research lab.

I've got a tiny little office there that can barely fit me in one other person when he saw a notification on his computer. It was an email saying you may not start any new projects. You can only work on things that you were working on before January 20th. Francis walked out of his office into the lab, and he saw everyone else reading the same thing. Everybody gets up and we all start talking to each other like, I didn't see that one coming. Hopefully that's not going to last more than a few days. Maybe this is still just an idea of the new team trying to figure out what they're doing.

They can't possibly mean this. I looked at people around me, and we just shook our heads like they were disbelieving. It's like, this is the United States of America, this is the NIH? It can't be right. But more orders kept coming down. Over a thousand employees at the NIH were suddenly fired. Those firings are still being challenged in the courts, but as of now, those people are still out of work. Researchers were prevented from studying certain topics like vaccine hesitancy, or even things like the health effects of

wildfires, and officials rolled out communications gag orders. No scientists working for NIH were permitted to speak in any kind of setting, even a scientific meeting with no press, or if you felt you had something you had to say, it had to be cleared at the level of the Department of Health and Human Services, which generally was not interested in clearing it. So you were effectively muzzled. It seemed like new rules were getting announced almost every day. sometimes on really basic things.

We were told you can't buy any supplies. And a little while after that, they decided, oh, you can use your purchase card now, but you can't buy anything that costs more than $1, which was an insult. It was clear that this was intended to induce trauma. This was cruel. This was not reasonable.

Here's why we're doing it. Don't worry. We love you. The message seemed to be, you are lazy, bureaucrats, and we are going to do everything we can to make your life miserable. Francis wasn't really sure what to do. He wasn't sure what he was allowed to do. We were all kind of in crisis.

I felt some really bad things are happening here, and yet I'm not able to speak about it. I would get lots of press inquiries saying, can you tell us what's really going on? The New York Times, the Washington Post, and I would have to say, I'm sorry, I can't talk to you. It got to the point where Francis felt like he just couldn't do his job anymore. It was feeling increasingly powerless and hopeless,

and frankly, also getting a sense that there might very well be an action taken to get rid of me because I was not seen as friendly to the administration. So I pulled my folks together in a conference room. They didn't know what was coming. and I told them by tomorrow night, I'm no longer going to be here. And we all cried. I never thought it would end this way.

My wife came to pick me up on that last Friday, and I just walked out of the building and got in the car and said, I guess this is it. That's how it ends. Most medicines developed in the last few decades, from cancer treatments to vaccines, have relied on NIH research.

But the current administration wants to cut its budget almost in half. So how did we get from a world where the NIH was universally recognized as a jewel of scientific research to a world where the government is essentially tearing it down from the inside? From a world where the same scientist who developed a life-saving vaccine in Trump's first term is now resigning under pressure in his second. I'm Noah Massenfeld. and today on Unexplainable, Francis Collins on how America lost trust in science

and how we might be able to get it back. Francis had been at the NIH for a long time, 32 years, and he'd seen it through all kinds of administrations. He started working on the Human Genome Project under Clinton. He finished it under Bush. He became NIH director under Obama and was still in charge under Trump when he led the NIH work on the COVID vaccine. And in the last few years, he'd moved from NIH director to running a diabetes research lab there. The whole time, he says there was never a question whether scientific research was important. Yeah, I mean, gosh, when I was NIH director, one of my jobs was to meet with members of Congress. I did that,

like at least a half a day a week for all 12 years to try to explain science and why it mattered and what we were doing at NIH that might make a difference in terms of people's lives. And support was always just a is good on each side of the aisle. It was one of the last remaining bipartisan things all the way up to about 2020. You know, it feels like during this time there's been a bigger shift, not just in government, but I'm constantly hearing that Americans themselves have lost trust in science. They have. Yeah. Does it feel like they have? Is that fair to say? I think it's totally fair. You can look at all the surveys about trust. And let's be clear. I mean, Americans have lost trust in almost every institution.

But I think it was more than that. I think COVID did a lot of harm to people's trust in science because, well, first of all, it was a huge, disastrous experience for the world. There were days where thousands of Americans were dying. And as one of those people who was communicating with the public about what we knew about the virus and what they might do to protect themselves, we were doing. we were doing the best we could with the information we had, but the information was incomplete. And so we often had to change recommendations over time because we learned more about the virus and about the pandemic.

And people began to wonder, do these guys know what they're talking about? So it is a fairly recent development that suddenly this has become about whether science is something that's good for our country or not. So your most recent book, The Road to Wisdom, It's all about trust. Yes. If you were telling the story of the loss of trust and everything going on in the science agencies today, how far back would you start? Like, you know, once upon a time, where is your beginning?

Depends on the particular demographic you're talking about. I'm a person of faith, by the way, and certainly people of faith have tended to be among the most skeptical of science. And that goes back 150 years or more to the sense that maybe science, is up to something that's trying to do damage to our Christian faith. And that was there, certainly well before COVID. But I think COVID did something to take what had been maybe a little bit of a tendency for science to be political and turned it into a really big deal. So if you're a Democrat, you're much more likely to get vaccinated than if you're a Republican. Does that make sense? Not in the slightest. But that's how it was.

the COVID vaccine. That's when Francis really understood just how bad trust in science had gotten, which was ironic because it was one of the highest points of his scientific career, the fastest vaccine development in history. I thought it was pretty unlikely that this could get done in less than maybe a year and a half.

And even that would have been a world record. The fastest one before now was five years. Five years, okay. Yeah. But people were dying around us, so we had to try. Yeah. And I also knew that most vaccines fail. Or if they succeed, they have sort of modest efficacy, maybe 40% or something.

And it was pretty likely that whatever we ended up with in this big push during 2020 was going to be far less satisfying than we would have hoped for. Francis still remembers the moment he knew it worked. They'd done this huge trial with 40,000 people. Half of them had gotten the vaccine. half of them had gotten a dummy shot, and no one knew which was which, not the patients, not the scientists,

just to be sure they weren't accidentally influencing anything, until one evening in November 2020. I remember holding my breath as they were pulling off the labels and basically revealing the results, because I'd prayed about this a lot that year. And it was astounding. The efficacy to prevent serious disease, hospitalization and death was 90 to 95 percent, so much better than anybody would have thought possible.

This was a stunning result. Where were you? Do you remember where you were when you got these results? I was a Zoom call, of course, because we were all wearing masks if we went outside. Remember, it was November 20, so nobody ever got together in person. But I was supposed to speak to the group then because they had the leaders of the effort, including from pharma on that. And I found I couldn't. I got all choked up.

And I had a few tears to shed, and I didn't know what to say. It felt like we have hope now. Prayers have been answered. Science has triumphed. This is probably the most amazing achievement that science has ever managed to produce to save humanity. I think it'll stand up that way over the course of time to do this in 11 months and to have that kind of result. At a certain point, though, it's a certain point, though, it's. became clear that a lot of people were not getting the vaccine.

Yeah. Do you remember when you found out? It happened over time, this sort of increasing unease. And by the time we got to this sort of April, May, June of 21, there was no reason for somebody say, well, I just can't get access. And then it was clear. We're talking about more than 50 million Americans who said, no. Yeah.

I don't want this. I didn't see that coming. Really? I guess I didn't realize how strong the political polarization was or how strong just our own sort of cognitive biases are. And I don't mean to put down these good, honorable people who made that decision. They were doing the best they can being barraged with information coming from lots of different directions and having a lot of political messages that tapped into other parts of what they can. cared about. It was a terrible position to have people put in. But what group was most resistant

to accepting the vaccines? It was white evangelical Christians. I'm a white evangelical Christian, so those are my people, but I broke my heart to see how that happened. For his part, Francis never really felt this tension between science and religion that so many other Christians have been dealing with. He actually came to Christianity through his work as a doctor. I know it surprises people, and believe me, it surprised me at the time when it happened. Now, I was raised in a home where faith wasn't considered relevant or important. I was an atheist by the time I was in graduate school. And then there I was sitting at the bedside of people who were facing the end of their lives.

And I had a patient who simply asked me one day, what do you believe? And I realized, I've spent no time at all on that question. And I thought, okay, I'm a scientist. I'm supposed to study all the questions. So I better study this one so that I'll have a better answer the next time about my atheism. You're saying, oh, I'm a scientist. I need to consider the possibility of God as a scientist. Right.

And I have never encountered a place where I thought some scientific insight about the universe could not be fitted fairly conveniently with what I know as a Christian. And I lived that during 2020 because I was praying. for those vaccines to be successful. But I was also expecting that if God answered those prayers, it would be through the science that we were all deeply engaged in. And that way, I think the laboratory in the cathedral are not all that different.

They're both places where you can worship. When Francis started seeing this happening, over 50 million people, and particularly these people just like him, white evangelical Christians, rejecting the vaccine, he thought he might be able to bridge the gap and trust. Does Jesus, for example, have an opinion about how we behave during this pandemic and even whether we get vaccines?

Do you think that the Bible speaks to these issues? I think the Bible speaks to virtually every issue, and that's where I often go when I'm trying to sort something out that I can't figure out on my own. Francis went on TV shows. He went on podcasts. He gave all kinds of interviews, all to show people what they're going to. the vaccine meant to him as a Christian. When you see how much time Jesus spent doing healings,

and even Jesus sometimes use things like water and mud, well, maybe that was his particular divine way of accomplishing a healing. We humans, as God's children, have been given the tools of science to kind of come up with our own way to work through God's grace to provide an opportunity to prevent suffering. and I think that's what vaccines are and have been all along. Francis wanted people to know that the vaccine wasn't something in opposition to his faith. It was a culmination of everything he believed in.

This is not a threat, but an answer to prayer, a God-given gift that is going to save lives. This is truly a love-your-neighbor moment. And some people will go, well, God will take care of us. Well, God does expect us also to answer the call. And maybe it helped. Maybe it would have been worse without that. But things were so dug in that I guess it wasn't good enough to convince people that this was something they would want for themselves and their family. And a lot of people died.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that vaccine hesitancy costs 234,000 lives. And now I hear Francis looking back trying to do a sort of autopsy on all of those lives lost. But I also hear I'm looking ahead. To the future lives we might lose because of what's currently happening at the NIH. The cuts and the censorship that led him to leave the institution he led for so long, a place that's supposed to be saving lives. If you cut out the foundational work that NIH supports, you're not going to have breakthroughs that otherwise are on the track to be there.

But it's more than that. There are people on clinical trials for cancer who suddenly have been told, I'm sorry, the trial was stopped, and that might have been their best hope. So there are casualties here that are absolutely immediate and desperate and put people's lives in jeopardy. Let no one misunderstand that. It feels impossible to wrap my head around all of this. The people at risk right now, the treatments that might not be discovered down the line. But I wanted to know if Francis had learned anything from his experience with the vaccine,

from all those people turning their backs on a treatment and whether that experience helps them make sense of what's going on now. When it's becoming clear that more than 50 million Americans aren't taking the vaccine, you know, one of the most remarkable scientific achievements in human history, did that tell you anything about the pursuit of science

and how it works? It certainly woke me up to the fact that we apparently had not done a very good job, going back some time in giving people some sense of science literacy about why can you both recognize that science is tackling some really hard problems and occasionally gets the wrong answer, but it's going to get self-corrected because it's about truth. Science is not just a bunch of people who are coming up with answers that they like. These are answers that aren't going to be sustainable unless they're actually true. And maybe here's also where I began to realize

that's another problem that society has that I was unaware of in terms of its severity, the importance of truth. The fact that there is such a thing as objective truth, but not everybody shared that. Well, that might be true for you, but it's not true for me.

I would hear people say that about things that were established facts. And that's a road to destruction of a society if it becomes widespread. And unfortunately, it seems to be doing so right now. It feels like you believed that all you had to do was develop the vaccine. Get to the thing that worked and then people would take it. And there's this whole other piece of convincing people that you or the scientific community at large didn't do.

Yep. I was naive about science communication and how it works. And I was kind of without knowing to call it this. I was an adherent to the knowledge deficit model. What does that mean? That means that if you're trying to communicate science to get somebody to make a decision, it's because they're missing knowledge, and you're going to provide that. You're going to fill their deficit, and then everything will be fine.

You just tell them, here's a fact. Yeah, here's a fact. Now you believe the fact. I'm an expert, and then they'll make the right decision. No, it doesn't work that way, especially when there's already skepticism and distrust. you're seen as an elitist who maybe has an axe to grind or something you're trying to put over on them. You may even do more harm than good

by going after somebody's misunderstandings face on. They're just going to dig their heels in more thoroughly. I guess what I've learned is we need to do a lot more listening with the science communication part of this, really understand where people are coming from, and also be prepared to tell stories instead of going down the road with statistics. Yet for a scientist, that sounds like an anecdote.

I would never get away with that in the seminar room. Yeah. This is not the seminar room, people. We need to actually find better ways to help people understand what we do. You might be listening to all of this and thinking, okay, sure, that sounds good in theory, but it's got to be pretty hard to have these kind of tough conversations that actually change people's minds in the real world, right?

In a minute, a tough conversation that, actually changes people's minds in the real world. It's all about you. And when you fly with Virgin Atlantic in their upper class cabin, they take the VIP treatment to the next level. With a private wing to check in and your own security channel at London Heathrow, you can glide from your car to their clubhouse, a destination in its own right in 10 minutes or less.

On board, you can treat yourself to your own private suite to stretch out in, with lots of storage space, a lie flat bed, and delicious dining from beginning to end. Just be sure to leave room for dessert. Their mile high tea with all the little cakes and sandwiches is a showstopper. Go to Virgin Atlantic.com to learn more. I'm Maria Sharpova and I'm hosting a new podcast called Pretty Tough. Every week, I'm sitting down with trailblazing women at the top of their game to discuss ambition, work ethic, and the ups and downs that come on the path to achieving greatness.

We'll dive into their stories and get valuable insights from top executives, actors, entrepreneurs and other individuals who have inspired me so much in my own journey. Follow Pretty Tough wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a Sted Hearnden, and this is America, actually. We're all talking to each other to see what did we do wrong? What did we not see? I'm in Washington, D.C. this week to interview Ruben Gallego. He's a Democratic senator from Arizona, and he's been thinking openly about running for higher office.

But he's recently run into some hot water because of his connection to Congressman Eric Swalwell. I have to learn from this, and I will learn from this. But for me, it's not a 2028 question. It's about what it means to be a better first boss in my office and also a better senator to my constituents. This week on America, actually, we asked Gallego about predatory behavior in Washington, his plans for immigration reform and more. Too many of us have lost trust in science, in institutions, in each other. So how do we get it back? In 2023, Francis tried something new.

Good evening. Shall we get started? He started working with a group called Braver Angels, which brings people together on opposite sides of an issue. So everything from immigration to gun control to public health. This discussion, of course, is entitled, an elitist and a deplorable walk into a bar. We'll let you.

decide in the course of the evening who's the elitist and who just walked into a bar. Francis was on stage with Wilkinson, this outspoken critic of COVID lockdowns, who ran a trucking company in rural Minnesota. I am somebody who certainly doesn't have the bona fide ease of a scientist. I have spent more time in bars in my adult life than they did in a classroom. The first time I met with him, I thought, well, we're never going to be able to get along here because let's just say he is very articulate and very outspoken. So when Braver Angels confronted me with this opportunity to speak with Dr. Francis Collins,

first of all, I was like, what? Like me? This doesn't make sense, but I'll talk to anybody. He was very strong in his views about how the government had trod upon liberties and freedoms and made stupid recommendations. There were so many problems with the communication. The science was changing, and that was not ever communicated well by anybody. Francis had gotten criticisms of his communication and his decision-making all the time.

But having this kind of conversation was different. I needed to listen. I mean, really listen to people who were very angry and distrustful of the government's approach and felt it had done them harm. And when he really listened, Francis could see that he agreed with a lot of Wilkes points. So what we did wrong, what I did wrong, because I had plenty of these moments in television interviews, is we failed to say every time there was a recommendation, this is the best we can do right now, is a good chance this is wrong.

We didn't say that. We wanted to be sure people actually motivated themselves by what we said, because we wanted change to happen in case it was right. but we did not admit our ignorance. And that was a profound mistake, and we lost a lot of credibility along the way. And that one, I will not forget. Francis had a whole bunch of conversations with Wilk

that went way beyond this one on stage. And they made them understand lots of different ways public health officials had been kind of narrow-minded. Out of that, I think I have a better sense of how our one-size-fits-all approach, at least initially, to the country, just didn't feel like it made any sense when people were in various rural communities

and wondering, why do I have to close my business? I haven't even seen any cases here yet. I learned about that. As a guy living inside the Beltway, feeling a sense of crisis, we weren't really thinking about what that would mean to Wilk and his family in Minnesota thousand miles away from where the virus was hitting.

It also helped me understand something that I maybe hadn't quite understood for myself, which was when I was in the middle of this, my number one goal was to save lives. I'm a physician. I took the Hippocratic oath. I assumed there were other people worrying about the economic effects of this and the effects on children's learning when they were kept out of school. And I didn't feel like that was my thing. My thing was to try to keep people from dying.

But it became clear to me that that may have been something. I was a little bit wearing blinders about. Maybe those other factors about economic harms and harms to children's learning should have been a bit more front and center to the conversations that I was part of. So I understand looking back on it and saying, okay, it would have been better, more accurate

to communicate the level of uncertainty, to just say to people, this is evolving, we don't know. Do you think that would have led to a different outcome? I don't know. I wish we could do the experiment, and maybe we could figure out a way to do it in some sort of controlled space. But the way in which this failed to land as effectively as I wish it had, I would say 20% of the problem was the less than perfect communication of the science, and 80% of it was the deluge of misinformation and disinformation, and that contaminated the conversation to the point where a lot of people, Stop listening to the actual facts, but there didn't seem to be any penalty for stating something that's absolutely false, and I haven't heard anybody apologize for that.

You know, when I think about this willingness to have difficult conversations, you know, to accept responsibility for mistakes, it seems like this is something that most people are not doing. Not doing. And I've heard you mention maybe we could have something like a truth and reconciliation. Commission or a pandemic amnesty on a larger level where people could really be open about their mistakes? Do you think that could have any effect? You know, I proposed the idea of amnesty in one of these Braver Angels large-scale settings, and the audience blew up. They were not there.

Huh. People are too angry. On both sides? On both sides. They're feeling too hurt. Too much harm has been done to them. So amnesty, I don't think we're there. Truth and reconciliation, people were like, okay, because they can imagine that those other people are going to have to ask for forgiveness for what they did. But right now we're so dug in. I hope that this truth and reconciliation option is out there. Right now, it doesn't quite feel like people are ready to go there.

One of the things that you say, looking back on your time during COVID, is that we needed to have more uncertainty. You need it to be communicating uncertainty all the time. It's something that the scientific agencies don't do enough of, and it's clearly now happening in the other way, where RFK is saying things like, we're going to find out the cause of autism, no uncertainty. It seems to me, like what we need is more people embracing uncertainty, more people talking about their mistakes,

whether it's people with their friends who they disagree with, or whether it's the highest scientists in our scientific agencies. How do we get there? Because we weren't there during COVID when we were doing Operation Warp Speed, and we're not there now. Yeah, we're a long way from there. And I guess when you're in this circumstance where there seems to be a real pitched battle

between the various tribes, the idea that anybody would say, I might be wrong. The fact that I've been willing to say that has resulted in a lot. lot of attacks, even from people who I thought were my friends, like, oh, no, you can't show weakness like that. Well, yeah, we really do need to do that, but we need to all do it and not just expect a few people who are then going to get whacked for it. It's hard right now, and you don't see a lot of that in our country.

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to come off as naive here. I don't assume that just emphasizing uncertainty is going to be the thing that, saves us from a full frontal assault on science. But I mean, your response was resigning because it doesn't seem like you could do anything. What do we do about this situation? Well, I didn't resign to go play golf or fishing because I'm not good at either one. I wanted to have a chance to try do something productive about this circumstance. So that's a lot of what I'm working on right now. I do think the action is basically to build on what. maybe is starting to happen, a general sense in the public, that medicine is important,

that maybe this is not something that should be attacked in this way. There's some signs there. There was a meeting of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Republicans, Susan Collins, and four senators made strong statements about how this is something that is one of the crown jewels of the federal government and should actually be sustained. and if anything expanded. So there is some maybe glimmers of support there, but I think our case is so strong.

We just have to figure out how to get that message to enough people, and we'll get this back on track. Francis can find hope in a lot of places, like even in Susan Collins kind of places. But it's clear he's worried about the lives this could be costing right now and about the future of his profession. even though I'm not there anymore, I still talk to lots of trainees. And that is the most disturbing part of this. Talk about unexplainable. How could the talent that we have in this country, much of

which is international trainees that have come from other countries because they thought America was the place where you could really pursue your dreams. And now they're losing confidence that there's a path for them. And fully a third of the young scientists I talk to, graduate students or postdoc, are seriously looking at the opportunity to leave the United States and take their science somewhere else and wondering, is there a hope for me here? Yeah. If I were a young scientist and I wasn't sure whether I should stay or whether I should even take this on as a career, what would you say to me?

I would say you're at a really paradoxical time because this is the most incredibly exciting moment for biomedical research, so many things are becoming possible that I would not have dreamed what happened in my lifetime. And we're on this exponential curve of gathering insights. So if that's your dream to be part of, don't give it up. Now, the paradox is right at the moment, there's a lot of negative things happening in the United States that seem to be threats. But the case here is so compelling that I don't believe those facts can be suppressed for very long. You can already look at polls to say when the American public is being asked, are you worried about some of the things that are happening right now? One of the things they say, I don't think they should be harming medical

research. That's right there. 77% of Americans raise that point. So that's people on both sides of the aisle. So there's some momentum there. So I wouldn't right now make your plan. to move to Australia, although you might want to have that in your back pocket in case it takes longer than I think it will for us to get back on track. Before we go, one last thing. This episode was us trying to wrap our heads around the current moment in science. All the changes at places like the NIH, the NSF, USAID. We're trying to figure out exactly what's happening.

What do all these budget cuts mean for science right now? What do they mean for the future of science in America? and we want to hear from you. Are you a young scientist just starting out, scratching your head about how to build a research career right now? Have your plans or dreams changed? How is all of this affecting you? We want to hear stories from people working in science about what's changing on the ground

right now. So if you're up for it, send us a voice memo or an email to Unexplanable at Vox.com. We'll get back to you as soon as we can. and with your permission, of course, you might be featured in a future episode. This episode was produced by me, Noam Hassanfeld. We had editing from Julia Longoria,

mixing and sound design from Christian Ayala, music from me, and fact-checking from Melissa Hirsch. Meredith Hoddonaut runs the show. Jorge Just is our editorial director, and Bird Pinkerton couldn't believe it. She thought the platypus was on her side, but suddenly she saw other platypuses

coming out of the grass. She'd been betrayed. Thanks as always to Brian Resnick for co-creating the show. And if you have any thoughts about this episode or any episode, send us an email. We're at UnexPlanable at Vox.com. We love hearing from you. We read all the emails. And you can also leave us a review or a rating wherever you listen.

It really helps us get in front of new listeners. You can also support this show and all of Vox's journalism by joining our membership program. You can go to vox.com slash members and you'll get ad-free podcasts as well as a whole bunch of other goodies. Plus, you'll be helping keep this place running and you'll make us very happy people. Unexplainable is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network and we'll be back next week.