From ScienceMag:
In February, shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated, Rebekah Tromble launched a program to advise scientists and journalists targeted for intimidation and harassment. But she announced it quietly, fearing the very kind of attacks the initiative was meant to counter. “We were truly concerned that trying to draw too much attention to our work would jeopardize our funding,” says the George Washington University social scientist. “It’s a bit counterintuitive for a program that is actually trying to reach and help people.”
Tromble’s paradoxical situation is emblematic of the fear and self-censorship coursing through the nation’s scientific establishment today. As the Trump administration fires swaths of government researchers, cancels scientific grants, and targets leading universities with punishing funding freezes, scientists who might once have welcomed public attention for their work or spoken up on issues affecting their field are instead opting for silence.
“The lived experience of a scientist right now is terrifying,” said one prominent health researcher who asked not to be named out of concern their funding would be targeted. “We love getting our research in The New York Times and Science. You can imagine how much fear is involved if we are saying ‘no.’”
Interviews with science advocacy groups and scientists working in a range of disciplines confirm that what Jen Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, calls “the fear factor” is rampant. Scientists “have been made to feel like they cannot open their mouth for fear of losing whatever they have left,” she says.
Jones sees it as an escalation of tactics already on display before Trump returned to the White House. She points to billionaire Elon Musk, enlisted by Trump to lead a campaign to shrink federal spending, who used his massive following on his social media platform, X, to target midlevel government officials, including scientists who would normally go unnoticed. “Trump and Musk have spent years perfecting their campaign of fear and intimidation,” she says. Well before the election, Tromble conceived her program in response to that mounting threat.
Now, the rhetoric is coupled with control of the vast levers of government, which the new administration has swiftly used to cut funding for specific research projects and institutions. Since Trump’s inauguration, the two premier federal science funding agencies, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have together canceled more than 2000 grants totaling more than $1.5 billion.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Science in a statement that “the Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration’s projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people’s priorities and continue our innovative dominance.” NSF declined to answer questions about whether agency officials have heard from scientists afraid of retribution, or whether they were concerned such fears might affect open discussions about research. NIH did not respond to a request for comment.
Although fields such as climate science and public health faced political attacks before this year, U.S. scientists of many stripes now feel at heightened risk, says Janice Lachance, CEO of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which has nearly 60,000 members working in earth and space science. Some researchers have asked the organization to scrub their names from its public list of committee volunteers because of concern that being identified for their work might make them vulnerable to retribution. Others have demurred when AGU officials asked to share their stories of funding cuts with congressional staff trying to document impacts on active research projects.
Even scientists accustomed to controversy and the public spotlight acknowledge the fear factor. The threats are “so vast and capricious,” says Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale University epidemiologist and veteran of political struggles around AIDS research going back to the 1980s. “As I’m sitting here talking to you, I realize it’s not without its risks.”
Gonsalves was one of nearly 900 Yale faculty who signed an April letter calling on the university to resist any threats to academic freedom. He says many scientists worry their institutions won’t support them if they speak out. “They are very worried about whether their colleagues, universities, institutions have their back.” Lachance agrees, noting, “Scientists are seeing some major institutions—some very powerful private sector entities—proceeding with caution.”
Several senior scientists who asked not to be named said that even if they could weather any damage, they keep quiet because they worry about the impact of a lost grant on Ph.D. students, laboratory staff, and others. “It’s all the people who depend on you,” said a health science professor who asked not to be named.
There are signs that scientists are starting to feel emboldened. Gonsalves points to Harvard University’s resistance to demands from the Trump administration as a watershed moment. In April, Harvard President Alan Garber sent a letter to administration officials vigorously rejecting a list of demands for federal oversight of university operations. Harvard has since sued to overturn a federal funding freeze on more than $2.2 billion in research grants imposed by the administration—which in turn cut off all future grant funding to the university.
At 62, Gonsalves says he has concluded that any price he pays for speaking out is outweighed by the toll the current administration is taking on the future of scientists and research in the United States. “It’s the next generation we have to protect and care about,” he says. “That’s what keeps me going.”
Scientists might also be realizing that there’s little safety in silence, says Kate Starbird, a University of Washington computer scientist who for years has been targeted by right-wing activists and some Republican members of Congress for her work on digital misinformation. At a recent conference on computer-human interaction hosted by the Association for Computing Machinery, she met scientists whose NSF grants had been canceled even though their research had no obvious connection to conservative hot-button issues. “I just don’t know [that] there’s a lot of wisdom in keeping our heads down anymore,” says Starbird, who has been outspoken for years. “I never had the option of keeping my head down.”
Tromble decided to be more vocal as well after NSF canceled funding for the final year of a 3-year, $5 million grant to study online harassment of experts and design a system to help people who are targeted. “The big risk for us was losing the funding, and now we’ve lost the funding,” Tromble says of her earlier decision to keep a low profile. She is now discussing her research more openly and working to raise philanthropic money to help maintain Expert Voices Together, the program launched in February.
Starbird hopes others will feel emboldened. She fears the scientific community is in danger of missing the chance to shape public perceptions about what the new administration is doing to U.S. research—and she’s taking lessons from her own experience. After the 2020 presidential election, she and fellow researchers were accused of conspiring to censor right-wing claims that the election was stolen from Trump. At first, they decided to ignore the false charges—a missed chance to push back against them before they metastasized, she says. Four years later, she says, “I think we are at risk of missing the golden window.”
