How to fix science

Michael Green, a former Duke University Ph.D. student who graduated in December 2024, found his NIH grant—approved in 2024 to study why sick patients avoid medical care—suddenly delayed after being instructed to remove ‘DEI language.’ In July 2024, his grant officer gave him a week to eliminate references like ‘Black’ and studies on racial discrimination in healthcare, but he remained unclear on what constituted compliance. Four months later, his funding for 2026 was still unresolved, leaving him without a salary, health insurance, or stable job prospects. The NIH’s decision reflects broader changes under the Trump administration, which terminated nearly 5,900 grants in 2024, disproportionately impacting younger researchers and women. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also shifted focus toward artificial intelligence, a White House priority, while reducing support for science education—a traditional strength. Anonymous NSF employees reported fear of retaliation for criticizing the shift, which has also affected agencies like the Department of Energy, EPA, and NASA. Green’s case highlights systemic issues in U.S. research funding, where older scientists dominate grants and administrative burdens limit time for actual research. Former NIH director Francis Collins suggested the turmoil could force long-overdue reforms, arguing the current system must evolve beyond its outdated framework. The NIH, with a $48 billion budget, remains central to biomedical research, but its funding policies now face scrutiny over fairness and transparency. Scientists warn that political interference and abrupt policy shifts risk stifling innovation, particularly for early-career researchers navigating an uncertain funding landscape.