Introduction The landscape of American science has witnessed significant upheaval in recent times, particularly during the recent political climate. Understanding the implications of these changes is crucial for both the scientific community and the public at large. Below, we delve into various facets of this dilemma, from funding cuts to the conflicts within major organizations, while also reflecting on the broader societal implications.
Part the First: The Sabotage of American Science For the past four decades, I have engaged in writing grant proposals and conducting research funded by organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). My experience extends to contributions supported by organizations like the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, where I have served on review panels, including chairing a basic biomedical science review panel for the AHA. While my success rate in securing funding has often hovered around the Mendoza Line (.200), the key takeaway is that contributing to science and society is a privilege for any researcher.
Recent discussions have focused on the state of American science under the second Trump Administration. A notable report by Henry Miller for Science-Based Medicine, titled Sabotaging America’s Future: The Catastrophic Cost of Federal Research Cuts, outlines the cascading effects of funding cuts on scientific progress. Dr. Miller, a pioneer in molecular cloning, voices a dire concern:
The actions taken by the federal government against American science over the past year and a half can only be described as sabotage—an orchestrated dismantling of one of humanity’s most productive endeavors, occurring at a time when it is least sustainable and rooted in a mix of ideological and incoherent reasoning.
Let’s consider the case of MIT. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology stands as a cornerstone of American innovation, known for monumental advancements such as radar development during WWII. As an undergraduate in the 1960s at MIT, I had the privilege of learning from Nobel laureates and Manhattan Project veterans. My graduate research led to the discovery of key enzymes critical for DNA replication and influenza virus replication.
In May, MIT President Sally Kornbluth delivered an urgent message regarding the state of federally funded research at the institution. She reported a staggering over 20% decrease in new federal research funding, creating a ripple effect that has reduced total campus research funding by 10% year-over-year—an alarming loss for one of the world’s most influential scientific communities.
As the saying goes, when premiere institutions like MIT or Harvard experience setbacks, the impacts on smaller research hubs can be even more catastrophic. The scientific community currently finds itself in a challenging situation, grappling with substantial disruptions.
What can we expect as a result of this sabotage? Careers might be curtailed early, while established researchers could find their projects irreversibly derailed. This is a brain drain that may shift valuable talent abroad. Countries like China are rising rapidly in research productivity, leaving many to wonder what America has lost. As previously noted:
The United States did not achieve scientific supremacy by mere chance. It required significant, bipartisan investment over many decades across universities, federal laboratories, and open inquiry cultures. What the current administration has done in a little over a year and a half is begin to dismantle that legacy with reckless efficiency, akin to an arsonist proudly claiming the flames as his own. The aftermath is real, and many who could contribute to rebuilding are already making plans to depart for nations like China, Germany, or Canada.
It’s a peculiar and troubling time in the world of science… and perhaps we already sensed this.
Part the Second: The Leadership of the American Diabetes Association Loses Its Mind Just recently, a number of esteemed members of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) faced expulsion from their annual meeting in New Orleans for distributing copies of an opinion piece published in the journal Diabetes Care, which is under the ADA’s purview:
The chorus of disapproval mounted days after security personnel removed five diabetes experts from the ADA meeting for distributing an editorial critiquing federal cuts to biomedical research. This decision shocked the diabetes research community, as ADA communications surrounding the issue have deepened the controversy, prompting fears for the association’s integrity and the future of diabetes research.
“It was unfathomable to me,” remarked John Buse, a former ADA president and co-author of the editorial. “I expected someone from the ADA may have approached us to express disapproval, but it was astonishing that they brought in law enforcement.”
The ADA quickly issued several statements defending their actions, but these explanations further alienated long-standing members.
The ADA’s response is particularly striking given that the organization had previously invited NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya MD-PhD, who had faced criticism during the early COVID-19 pandemic regarding the controversial Great Barrington Declaration. Bhattacharya ultimately withdrew from attending the conference.
This incident highlights that the ADA leadership seemingly prioritized conformity over the freedom of its members to address pressing public health issues. The fallout has resulted in at least two ADA leaders resigning, as reported:
At least two of the organization’s leaders have walked away from their positions following the incident, including President-Elect Jennifer Green, MD, and Scientific Sessions Planning Committee Chair Mark Atkinson, PhD, according to several sources.
In the wake of this debacle, the editorial that sparked so much debate has gained unexpected traction, leading to a notable increase in its visibility:
Kahn noted that the response effectively turned his editorial into a focal point, racking up page views that soared to 76,000, along with massive social media engagement. “We aimed to distribute 1,000 copies of these editorials, but the ADA’s actions broadened our reach far beyond that,” he stated.
If Bhattacharya had attended, would attendees have overwhelmed him? Unlikely. Would pointed questions have emerged? Certainly. Regardless, the ADA leadership has since issued apologies, though their efficacy remains questionable. Here is the video from the Science article (archive unavailable).
It’s a strange era in the world… and we seem to be aware of that already.
Part the Third: Technology Versus Community The Amish community is often misjudged; they are not inherently against technology but are selective about its integration into their community. The insights from Donald Kraybill are particularly relevant here. Dixie Dillon Lane discusses Pope Leo XIV, artificial intelligence, and the Amish in her reflective piece Magnifica Humanitas, Artificial Intelligence, and Amish Country.
While certain Amish reservations about technology may seem trivial, we must also reflect on our tech dilemmas. Concerns over smartphones potentially ruining face-to-face interactions deserve attention.
The fundamental question lies in whether we dictate terms to our technology, or whether it governs us. Numerous examples reveal scientists struggling to automate procedures, often complicating their research rather than enhancing it. This serves as a reminder that efficiency does not always equate to effectiveness.
An interesting discussion arose recently regarding Ted Turner, the founder of CNN. The conversation centered on the necessity of a 24/7 news cycle—something unheard of when CNN first aired in 1980. This continuous information stream has undeniably altered our political landscape, generally not for the better. While the implications of this change are debatable, regular detoxes from news consumption should become a part of our weekly routine. Preaching to the choir here, but sometimes reminders prove helpful.
Part the Fourth: Did They Really Mean to Do That? Elizabeth Selvin shares her experience in We published in Nature Medicine in 2025 for free. In 2026, it cost us $12,850:
In June 2025, I directed a study accepted by Nature Medicine at no cost. The publication process included rigorous peer review and editing. This effort, supported by philanthropic contributions and NIH grants, demanded countless hours from a dedicated team.
However, in 2026, I co-authored another NIH-funded study that incurred a $12,850 fee for publication—a non-negotiable open-access charge imposed by the publisher. This shift was due to the NIH’s 2024 Public Access Policy aimed at ensuring free access to taxpayer-funded research.
While some nonprofit publishers have adopted this model, many for-profit publishers have not, maintaining embargo periods and requiring upfront costs for immediate access.
Previously, scientists could bypass any fees by opting for the subscription model, but compliance with the new NIH policy mandates payment for open-access publication. These fees vary considerably among publishers, with rates reaching as high as $12,850 for Springer Nature.
This situation raises an absurd paradox. Previous funding configurations did not require such fees, leading to necessary resource allocation dilemmas as scientific funding dwindles. The reality is undeniable: scientific progress is increasingly compromised by profit-driven motives.
Part the Fifth: Science Is Still Pretty Cool, Especially in the Hands of Someone Like Richard Feynman. While I’ve sometimes been labeled as less adventurous in dining choices, this observation holds some truth. Yes, I tend to revisit favorite spots and stick with trusted dishes. To my surprise, I’ve found validation in Dr. Feynman’s advice regarding the so-called “Restaurant Problem”:
Feynman’s notes suggest that an optimal approach involves establishing a quality threshold which begins high but descends over time.
Researchers Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths delved into this problem about a decade ago, retracing Feynman’s original notes on the Feynman Lectures website. They confirmed that his strategy is optimal while exploring whether real human choices align with this logic.
The findings reveal that individuals don’t adhere strictly to Feynman’s curve; instead, they adopt simpler patterns to decision-making, capturing roughly 90% of the optimal score.
The paper in PNAS reveals:
Resolving Feynman’s restaurant problem reveals optimal solutions and human strategies
Richard Feynman possessed a unique instinct for uncovering elegant solutions, not only in physics but also in understanding human behavior and decision-making. Resolving his restaurant challenge showcases the delicate balance we navigate between exploration and exploitation.
Indeed, people often display intelligence beyond our expectations—achieving 90% of optimal decisions still signifies success. I find myself drawn to familiar favorites on menus, perhaps indulging in a burger topped with Swiss cheese and grilled mushrooms alongside a Drafty Kilt or Ode to Mercy. Now, at 1:00 in the morning, I feel hunger pangs!
Thank you for joining me on this journey through recent events in the realm of science. Until next week, I urge you to occasionally disconnect from the news. Embrace what brings you joy and navigate this peculiar time with resilience.
