With the dismantling of scientific institutions nationwide due to broad reforms to federal science policy under the Trump administration, the future of American research is uncertain. Leading institutions like Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania — along with dozens of other schools — face actual or potential federal funding freezes, and government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) are undergoing massive layoffs, grant cutbacks, and abrupt cancellations due to looming budget threats.

Amidst these changes, university researchers and incoming undergraduates are left scrambling, with questions and uncertainty about their futures, the job market, and the diminishing value placed on research.

Colette Delawalla — a third-year clinical psychology doctorate candidate at Emory University studying compulsive alcohol use — experienced this upheaval firsthand. One day before the university deadline for her dissertation grant submission, she learned it would be delayed due to ongoing chaos at the NIH.

“Jan. 20 happened, and Trump immediately started signing these impactful executive orders particularly aimed at higher education and science. I was sitting around waiting for somebody to do something about it. I thought that there would be protests,” Delawalla said.

According to Delawalla, thousands of researchers have faced similar fates, losing funding and their dissertations coming to a standstill as they figure out how to move forward.

Following her delayed dissertation in February, Delawalla organized a protest in Washington, D.C., after being motivated by a lack of initiative she saw around her. What started as a single rally evolved into a nationwide movement: on March 7, Delawalla’s newly formed nonprofit Stand Up for Science organized 32 rallies across the United States, followed by over 150 internationally.

Delawalla’s frustration and sense of urgency are sentiments now shared by many in the scholarly community. With limited grant opportunities and cuts to the overhead funding tied to them, universities are scaling back in anticipation of deeper budget reductions.

“Immediately, there were reports of hiring freezes at many well-known universities in preparation for these budget cuts. I think many people are hoping that some of the new policy is reversed soon, but more reductions in hiring and downsizing of research staff are sure to come eventually if that doesn’t turn out to be the case,” said Kevin Wasko, a doctoral candidate in Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

According to Wasko, a researcher developing technology for genome editing therapies, while he hasn’t been personally affected, the outlook for careers in biology has significantly worsened across the board, from undergraduates applying to graduate school to postdoctoral scholars looking for faculty positions.

“I know people in my own lab hoping to apply to graduate school in the fall are worried that there will be fewer positions, and I think this is likely to be the case, at least for the next few years,” Wasko said.

This isn’t just affecting those deep into their degrees — rising undergraduates, fresh out of high school, see these institutions as the next genuine steps toward pursuing their scientific interests.

“I think about your generation, and when you go off to school, if you want to go to college, I want you to have an opportunity to be a scientist. I want you to have the same opportunities, if not more than what I had when I was in high school and making my decisions about my future, and at this point, that’s absolutely not what will happen,” Delawala said.

According to Mila Hamby, a senior at Carlmont High School who plans to pursue astrophysics at UC Berkeley next year, her concerns stem primarily from a humanitarian point of view, where research benefits everyone constantly and in numerous ways.

“There are constantly new medications that are helping people live their lives, or even saving lives that are due to research,” Hamby said. “At the Department of Energy labs, like at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), we could image the Coronavirus for the first time. There’s so much research being done that helps people, and stopping any funding for research like this will make us feel it a lot.”

While the positive effects of federally-funded research — evident across many aspects of life, such as technology, healthcare, and environmental protection — may go unnoticed, the impacts of these cuts could be catastrophic.

“The statistics show that over 99% of those prescription drugs that came to market got their starts in NIH-funded laboratories at American universities,” Delawalla said.

Furthermore, according to Delawalla, other healthcare sectors, especially in rural communities, might also suffer, as funding helps keep hospitals open, and without them, people would be left without necessary care.

Hamby’s concern with the increasing difficulty of finding research jobs lies in pharmaceuticals, where private companies dominate the industry.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to streamline all of our medical research to private companies,” Hamby said. “There’s a major issue called patent evergreening, where companies, just to make money, find ways to extend their drug patents by making changes that don’t affect the drug’s performance. This allows them to be the sole seller for another 20 years, making it harder for people who need the medication to access it and live healthy lives.”

There has been some support for the administration’s decision to tighten funding, with proponents arguing that prestigious institutions like Harvard, recognized as the wealthiest university with an endowment of $51.977 billion, don’t truly require government research funding. However, scientists like Delawalla and Wasko counter that federally funded research, which has been tied to government support since World War II, has established the U.S. as a global leader in scientific advancement and progress.

“The rampant slashing of science funding will almost certainly lose us that title if allowed to continue,” Wasko said.

Additionally, according to Hamby, whether through fields like medicine, space exploration, or sustainability, federally funded research aims to solve key problems and answer crucial questions. Thus, investing in research ultimately benefits society, particularly the American people.

“Research is expensive — it’s time-intensive, requires costly equipment, and is difficult to carry out. Plus, researchers need to be paid,” Hamby said. “It requires a lot of capital to accomplish, but it helps us so much over time.”

Manya Kumar, a senior at Carlmont who plans to study electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley in the fall, echoed Hamby’s thoughts.

“People underestimate how much research costs — software, proper ethical procedures, running multiple tests. It adds up,” Kumar said. “However, I do see where there’s maybe room to make cuts and investigate where the money is going.”

Amid concerns that research is being devalued under the current administration, Kumar remains committed to pursuing it.

“I’m still going to go in and try to get research opportunities,” Kumar said. “They don’t need to defund everything to devalue research — they’re already doing that by pushing people away from it.”

To push back against the administration’s actions on a broader scale, Delawalla’s organization is partnering with groups like Indivisible and 50501 to join upcoming rallies, aiming to create a larger impact with a strong coalition.

On the grassroots front, Delawalla is also launching a campaign called Summer of Scientists, which sends scientists into communities that may not have regular access to them. The goal of the campaign is to engage with the public, explain the importance of science, and raise awareness about the ongoing defunding.

Delawalla views this as critical, given the widespread lack of knowledge about the problem and its long-term consequences.

“The take-home message of that campaign will be these five-minute actions that people can take to let their congresspeople know, their elected government officials, that they are not okay with defunding science and to give them that message going into the budget mode. The idea is that if we can pressure our members of Congress, they will vote in a way that supports the continued funding of science,” Delawalla said.

Whether through grassroots campaigns or the commitment of university-based researchers, the movement to maintain government support for science is increasingly gaining momentum. The ongoing efforts to protest, from rallies to small, direct actions, show that the voices of those dedicated to advancing science and society will not be silenced.

“A lot of the research is happening in colleges or at universities; those are always the protest hubs of the nation,” Hamby said. “If funding gets cut, people will be heard from. I’m sure people will spend their time doing as much research unpaid as they possibly can because it’s the learning that brings them joy and because they know what they’re doing will help other people.”

This story was originally published on Scot Scoop News on May 5, 2025.