From ScienceMag:

For one postdoc, uncertainty about whether the funding for her awarded “diversity” fellowship from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will come through means she’s spending valuable time writing more applications instead of doing research. For another, learning that the “dream job” he’d been offered at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was being withdrawn because of the federal hiring freeze has left him clinging to his current position—and $5000 poorer because he already canceled his lease in preparation for moving. And a Ph.D. student whose dream is to one day lead a planetary mission at NASA is “panicking” about her professional future.

These are just a few of the countless researchers reeling after President Donald Trump’s administration unleashed a wave of actions over the past month—freezing funds, firing thousands of federal employees, upending programs and research related to gender and diversity, and more. Scientists of all stripes have been affected, but none more so than early-career researchers, a group already struggling with low pay and job insecurity. Now, some wonder how many of those budding researchers will throw in the towel and leave science, or the United States, entirely. “There’s going to be a missing age class of researchers that will reverberate for years,” one federal scientist fears.

Scores of young researchers were affected after the country’s main federal funding agencies, NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), canceled programs that were judged to be in violation of Trump’s 21 January executive order banning “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI).” Some were supplements to other grants secured by principal investigators and were meant to support the salaries and career development of trainees from underrepresented groups. Others were awards given directly to graduate students and postdocs who proposed, as part of their research or through outreach, to help broaden the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.

“These kinds of shocks are going to lead to a mass exodus … for minorities in particular,” says Trajan Hammonds, a Princeton University mathematics Ph.D. student who last year applied for one of the postdoc fellowship programs NSF has since canceled. He expected to hear news about his application this month—but instead he got an automated email notification that the program had been deleted. He’s now scrambling to find other postdoc opportunities. “I’m fairly annoyed,” he says. “I would’ve happily applied for the ‘regular’ [fellowship] … and I would have had a pretty strong application.”

Another applicant, a postdoc who asked to remain anonymous, says they’re concerned about their own future in science—and about what will come of efforts to ensure the academic community is accessible to people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. “What part of diversity, equity, and inclusion do you have a problem with?” she asks.

The campaign against DEI could endanger some nondiversity grants to early-career researchers, as well. One Ph.D. student, who also wished to remain anonymous, told Science she applied for an NIH training grant to support her research on maternal mortality. Her proposal, which had been scheduled to be reviewed in January, mentioned racial disparities and used gender-neutral language such as “birthing people.” She fears it may now be flagged as being in violation of Trump’s executive orders.

Young researchers also face the prospect that positions for graduate students and postdocs will dwindle because of broader scale cuts to research funding—for instance, the threatened reduction in the indirect costs that universities charge to carry out research funded through federal grants. As graduate school admission decisions are being made, faculty at several research-intensive universities—including Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington—have been told to reduce the size of their incoming cohorts, the health news site STAT reported.

Some prospective students wonder whether they will even accept a slot if offered. Mathew Sarti was hoping to start grad school this fall. Now, he says, “I want to wait and see how departments handle certain things before committing fully to a place,” he says. He’s holding out for a department that will support students affected by the turmoil, as he was. A junior specialist in a lab at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Sarti was told by NIH in January that he was being recommended for funding for a diversity training grant. But on 5 February he and his supervisor received a follow-up email that said, “I regret to have to inform you that NIH has instructed us not to issue any diversity supplements that are pending.” He lost funding to attend conferences, and he can’t afford to pay his own way. “I’m first generation in all senses of the word.”

Many of the federal scientists fired this month are also early in their careers. “I feel like I was robbed of a career,” says one biologist who was terminated from his position at the U.S. Geological Survey on 14 February. Another fired scientist, who had started a position at USDA in 2023 after finishing a 3-year postdoc, says he had “envisioned this being my last job—one I would be in for 20 or more years.”

They’re now suddenly in an uncertain position, with a new set of financial challenges and anxiety about where they’ll be able to find work next. “I’m not optimistic about an already competitive job market that is going to be flooded with qualified scientists,” one said.

That leaves those earlier in the career pipeline worried as well, especially as reports start to trickle in about universities slowing hiring of faculty members and postdocs. “What does my future look like?” asks Ashley Walker, a fourth year planetary science Ph.D. student at Howard University who founded #BlackInAstro and dreams about working at NASA someday. “The job market—what it looks like today, will be completely different a year from now, right? And so, what trajectory does that lead me in?”

Read More

From ScienceMag:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is shrinking its support of a long-running program that offers summer research opportunities to thousands of college students—many from groups historically underrepresented in science.

Within the past few weeks, several universities have had to cancel plans to host these students this summer after getting word they won’t be funded through NSF’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. The reasons are not clear, and NSF is not commenting. But it appears to be a combination of belt tightening while NSF awaits word on its final budget for this fiscal year and concern that the program may clash with the new administration’s ban on activities that promote diversity.

Begun in 1987 and with sites at hundreds of research-intensive U.S. campuses, the $80-million-a-year REU program caters to students whose home institutions can’t provide opportunities to do the original research needed to launch their careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Potential host institutions apply to NSF for 3 years of funding to support a summer cohort of eight to 10 students from other colleges and universities; prospective students then apply directly to the sites. Many REU programs have been running for decades, and some universities offer programs in different fields thanks to multiple awards.

With renewal rates of 80% or higher, many sites with expiring grants had already begun accepting applications in the expectation the proposal they submitted in August 2024 would be funded for another 3 years. But 2 weeks ago, many of those REU sites began to post notices saying this summer’s program has been canceled because of a lack of funding from NSF.

“It’s a gut punch for the field,” says astronomer Ralf Kotulla, who runs an REU at the University of Wisconsin–Madison up for renewal and also coordinates an informal network of 80 physics and astronomy REU sites around the country. He predicts the list of cancellations will grow significantly in the weeks to come because of the continuing congressional impasse over setting final spending levels across the federal government for the current fiscal year, which runs through 30 September.

Brian Utter, a teaching professor of physics at the University of California (UC), Merced, is part of that affected cohort. Utter says he got an “encouraging message” about the status of the physics REU site he runs only a few weeks before a 13 February email from two NSF program officers dashed his plans.

“Although we [had earlier] sent many of you emails expressing our plans to recommend for funding, circumstances have changed,” it read, referring to the pool of hundreds of applications reviewed last fall in response to NSF’s most recent annual request for REU proposals. “We deeply regret that we are not going to be able to hold to all of those plans.”

“Everybody was surprised at how quickly the landscape had changed,” Utter says about the unwelcome NSF email, which was followed a few days later by an official declination of his grant application. REU sites with funding in hand for 2025 and 2026 appear not to be affected by the cutbacks.

As soon as UC Merced officials got the word, they posted a notice online citing the country’s new president as the underlying cause. “Due to the uncertainty stemming from a lack of support for science funding by the Trump Administration, the NSF is unable to proceed with the initial funding recommendation anticipated to support the REU program,” it read. “Therefore, the UC Merced Physics REU will not take place in summer 2025.”

Utter speculates that fiscal constraints aren’t the only reason NSF has pulled back on its support for the REU program. “I think NSF was worried about not having enough money, for sure,” Utter says. “But attracting more students into STEM careers from groups underrepresented in science is also a big part of what the REU program is trying to do. And that would have made it a target” for President Donald Trump’s executive order last month banning government funding of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Some REU directors affected by NSF’s pullback say they assumed reviewers had found flaws in their proposal that led NSF to end its support for their site. But others are willing to accept the budget stalemate in Congress as the proximate cause. “We regret to inform you that the BioREU program has been cancelled for summer 2025 due to budgetary uncertainties at various federal funding agencies,” reads an email from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) about its program for biology students.

For students whose home institutions aren’t major research universities, a summer REU may be the only way to get the research experience needed to be admitted to a high-quality graduate program. The JHU post also highlights the importance of the REU program as a recruiting tool for universities. “We hope you will consider reapplying, and we certainly hope you will keep JHU in mind as you consider graduate school.”

REU programs that haven’t yet been canceled face a ticking clock as they wait on Congress to pass a final spending bill and avoid a governmentwide shutdown on 14 March, when the current temporary spending bill expires. But even if that happens—and NSF escapes significant budget cuts and decides to sustain REU funding at current levels—Kotulla worries congressional action may come too late for many REU programs.

“The physics and astronomy sites agreed to set a deadline of 3 March for notifying students who have been accepted,” he says. “And with 450 applications for our program, I can’t wait until NSF makes up its mind to go through all of them and choose 10 to admit.

“It’s also not fair to keep students in the dark about whether they will have a paying job this summer,” he adds, noting the REU grant comes with a $7000 stipend as well as room and board. “So, unless they hear in the next week or so, a lot more sites are going to have to cancel for this summer.”

Read More