Science & Technology Funding Uncertainty Impacts Regular People, Too
The Federation of American Scientists urges the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time. This includes removing new or additional administrative processes that create additional layers of review and approval for federal funding opportunities, consistent with the Administration’s stated commitment to reduce administrative overhead in science and technology.
Funding disruptions and delays can create additional uncertainty for scientific programs, forcing individuals to change plans, cancel work, or seek other opportunities. According to a recent survey published by STAT:
- 23% of laboratories funded by NIH have laid off staff and rescinded offers made to graduate students as a result of funding changes, threatening the viability of the country’s talent pipeline (especially impacting women scientists and scientists from marginalized communities, and early career researchers);
- 68% reported their institutions increased administrative processes for spending and hiring as a result of federal policy changes, despite the government’s commitment to relieve administrative burden;
- 43% of researchers canceled planned research;
- 54% of researchers reduced the scope of their research, diminishing the impact and efficiency of their work;
- 56% redirected funding from other projects; and
- 53% of researchers advised their students to consider opportunities outside the United States.
When the economic dynamics of any industry change, those with the talent and ability to change direction are often the first to do so. We are already seeing increasing competition for international funding opportunities from American scientists. The prestigious European Research Council, whose grants are awarded if researchers agree to establish their team in Europe, has seen a fourfold increase in applications from Americans for the program’s Advanced Grants. Last year, a survey by Nature suggested that 75% of American researchers were considering moving overseas.
Changes in the viability of proposals as a result of funding delays and lengthy approval processes also wastes the government’s time and money, forcing program officers to reevaluate proposals, often under new direction, when projects being considered for funding are no longer considered viable.
What seem like esoteric considerations that impact only a small fraction of the population is, in fact, a much larger concern: historically, funding for science and technology has significant ripple effects that boost the American economy and offer real solutions that improve people’s daily lives. If the National Institutes of Health expenditure is limited to that provided in the Fiscal Year 2026 President’s Budget Request, the projected economic impact would cost the U.S. economy approximately 46 billion dollars and over 200,000 jobs (not including NIH jobs already terminated). Cuts to research-performing agencies can lead to losses of capacity, reduced ability to develop and deploy critical and emerging technologies, and diminished capability to maintain datasets that are essential for the functioning of the American economy, as noted in FAS’s ongoing “Dearly Departed Datasets” project.
“Recapturing the urgency that propelled us so far in the last century”, as the President’s letter to OSTP Director Michael Kratsios directs, requires approaching our changing competitive landscape, including federal support for science and technology, with the same level of urgency.
At FAS, we believe that collaboration produces the strongest policy solutions in pursuit of a government that delivers real results for the American people. This includes engaging directly with key stakeholders across the S&T ecosystem who are deeply connected to, impacted by or implicated in federal policymaking decisions around S&T funding and infrastructure. We also engage directly with members of the public who may have ideas or input about the impact of changes to the structure and level of the federal S&T ecosystem, but may not be in a position to directly impact it.
If you are interested in this topic, want to offer your perspective, or have ideas for policy solutions to this challenge, we invite you to connect with our team by responding to our open call.
The emerging federal metascience community is asking fascinating questions that are equally vital for democratic legitimacy: beyond “did this program work” to “how does the federal R&D enterprise itself work, and how could it work better?”
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.