The current assault on U.S. biomedical research funding is more than a domestic policy failure—it is a global threat to science, equity, and evidence-based public health.

A Scientific System in Crisis – The Erosion of U.S. Biomedical Research and Its Global Reverberations

by ChatGPT-4o

The scientific community in the United States, particularly in biomedical research, is facing a historic crisis marked by sweeping federal funding cuts, grant terminations, administrative paralysis, and ideological interference. The preprint paper “The ship is going down and we are powerless” and its corresponding STAT article by Salles, Do, and Mastej provide one of the first systematic investigations into the psychological, professional, and systemic consequences of this unprecedented disruption. Their research, based on responses from 277 NIH T32 training program faculty across the country, paints a grim picture of a demoralized and destabilized scientific enterprise.

1. Overview of the Research and Methodology

The authors surveyed biomedical researchers, asking two key questions: (1) how likely they would be to pursue science again if they were graduate students now, and (2) how federal funding changes have affected them, their trainees, and their labs. The data collection combined quantitative analysis with qualitative, thematic coding of open-ended responses. Four dominant themes emerged:

• Impact on Finances

• Impact on Trainees

• Impact on Science

• Impact on Well-being

2. Key Findings

a. Financial Instability and Lab Closures

Federal funding cuts, review delays, abrupt grant terminations, and stalled Notices of Award (NOAs) have created severe financial uncertainty. Early-career researchers, often reliant on soft money, face existential threats to their labs. Many report burning through departmental startup funds or reducing operations significantly. Labs are shrinking, projects halted, and competitive internal funding is stretched thin. Some researchers face scenarios where even scored and competitive grants are unfunded, particularly those involving topics now politically targeted.

b. Impact on Trainees and Future Talent Loss

NIH T32 training programs, essential for supporting PhD and postdoctoral scholars, have been hit hard. Graduate admissions were rescinded, diversity grants canceled, and international students forced to self-deport or avoid travel for fear of visa revocation. Respondents worry not only about paying current students but also about whether to admit new ones at all.

This has a cascading effect on the pipeline of future scientists and disproportionately affects underrepresented and international trainees.

c. Scientific Paralysis and Topic Censorship

The cuts have not been ideologically neutral. Research areas affected include LGBTQ+ health, trans studies, structural racism, climate change, HIV, COVID-19, and misinformation. Projects were terminated not because of scientific weakness but because they “no longer effectuate agency priorities.” Some researchers have changed their research topics entirely to remain fundable—an alarming distortion of scientific integrity.

This censorship chills innovation and threatens public health and democratic accountability.

d. Mental Health and Morale Collapse

Researchers reported high anxiety, sleep deprivation, panic, and burnout. The emotional toll is evident in the recurring metaphor that “the ship is going down.” A widespread “sense of doom” has overtaken labs—even among those not yet directly affected.

This psychological erosion compromises not only productivity but the long-term viability of research careers.

3. Broader Implications

The findings extend far beyond the individual narratives:

• Ecosystem-wide Damage: Even researchers not directly affected by terminations experience reduced productivity, morale, and funding uncertainty.

• National Consequences: The NIH has been instrumental in developing 354 of 356 FDA-approved drugs between 2010–2019. Undermining this system is a self-inflicted blow to public health and economic growth.

• Global Brain Drain: According to Nature, 75% of surveyed researchers are considering leaving the U.S. The combination of instability and hostility makes the U.S. less attractive for both retaining and attracting global scientific talent.

• Ideological Interference: Science is no longer politically insulated. The federal imposition of content-based restrictions—especially the banning of topics—risks aligning U.S. science with autocratic governance norms.

4. Strategic Recommendations for Global Scholarly Publishers

Given the scale and speed of this erosion, scholarly publishers—particularly those with international reach—must respond not just defensively, but proactively:

A. Strengthen Global Research Infrastructure

• Diversify Funding Pathways: Expand partnerships with philanthropic, private-sector, and international funders (e.g., Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation, Horizon Europe).

• Sponsor Emergency Bridge Grants: Collaborate with foundations or consortia to provide short-term fellowships, publication waivers, or editorial internships for displaced researchers.

B. Create Safe Publishing Havens for At-Risk Topics

• Defend Research Integrity: Maintain editorial independence and continue publishing high-quality work on topics under political attack, such as DEI, LGBTQ+ health, climate science, and disinformation.

• Develop Special Issues and Calls for Papers: Curate collections that give visibility to areas defunded in the U.S., ensuring the global scientific community can continue engaging with them.

C. Support Trainee and Early-Career Researchers

• Fee Waivers and Fellowships: Offer APC waivers, reviewer training, and mentorship programs for early-career scientists, especially those in defunded programs.

• Open Peer Review Opportunities: Invite postdocs and graduate students to participate in peer review or editorial boards, giving them visibility and credibility.

D. Invest in Decentralized and Sovereign Publishing Infrastructure

• Resilience Against Authoritarianism: Explore decentralized hosting (e.g., IPFS, LOCKSS), regional repositories, and AI-assisted archival to protect at-risk content from censorship or takedown.

• Champion Data and Metadata Sovereignty: Help authors retain rights to their data and metadata to prevent suppression or misuse of politically sensitive findings.

E. Advocate at Policy Level

• Engage with Legislators and Institutions: Collaborate with advocacy groups (e.g., ARL, SPARC, COAR) to defend public research funding and academic freedom.

• Prepare Briefings and Testimonies: Offer to summarize research findings like these for congressional hearings or public consultations.

F. Document and Archive This Crisis

• Create a Scholarly Archive: Treat this period as historically significant. Launch a digital archive or oral history project documenting the lived experiences of researchers under siege.

• Support Meta-Research: Encourage sociological and meta-scientific analyses of funding policy impacts, using publishing platforms to amplify them.

Conclusion

The current assault on U.S. biomedical research funding is more than a domestic policy failure—it is a global threat to science, equity, and evidence-based public health. If left unchallenged, it will erode decades of progress and drive talent away from a nation that has long led in scientific innovation. Global scholarly publishers are not bystanders; they are critical infrastructure providers in the research ecosystem. By actively supporting displaced researchers, defending knowledge integrity, and reinforcing alternative pathways, publishers can help ensure that the global scientific enterprise remains robust, resilient, and just.