Introduction: Reflections on the State of Science and Medicine In recent years, the landscape of scientific inquiry and medical education in the United States has faced significant challenges. As funding becomes scarce and support for diversity programs diminishes, a concerning trend emerges: the potential regression of progress within these fields. This article delves into the critical state of American science, the implications of funding cuts, and the potential for innovative responses to these challenges.
Part the First: Back to the Past in Science and Medicine. The outlook for fundamental research in the United States appears bleak, impacting everyone from eager graduate students to established professors leading teams of researchers. The recent imposition of stringent lending limits for students in medical, nursing, and healthcare programs will further exacerbate existing issues. A worrying decline in the enrollment of students from historically underrepresented groups, including women and those from rural areas, threatens to revert progress to previously established baselines largely influenced by socio-economic status and personal connections.
The termination of initiatives aimed at encouraging underrepresented students to pursue scientific careers adds another layer of concern:
New data emerge in a political landscape far less supportive of such initiatives than when they were launched three decades ago. Both the Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) and Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) programs were halted under the Trump administration, alongside the funding for the associated studies.
…
The RISE and MARC programs were established following the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which aimed to “increase the number of underrepresented minorities engaged in biomedical and behavioral research.” The RISE program offered funding to institutions to foster educational and mentoring opportunities for students preparing for careers in biomedical research. Meanwhile, the MARC program provided funding for undergraduates to engage in research while obtaining professional training.
…
In a recent study, researchers succeeded in matching students based on 11 variables such as their academic major, GPA, and their aspirations of becoming scientists. The study included 608 participants from the RISE and MARC programs, alongside a comparison group of 135 students. Findings revealed that 20% of RISE students and 34% of MARC students earned Ph.D. degrees, compared to only 10% and 15% in their respective comparison groups.
While these results are difficult to quantify, they provide valuable insight into the importance of these programs. Having worked with several of these students, I’ve witnessed how crucial these initiatives were in paving their pathways into scientific careers.
Additionally, a brief mention of women as a historically underrepresented group in science and medicine is essential. The scientist for whom I served as a postdoctoral fellow was the first woman in her department at our prestigious medical school to gain tenure, an acknowledgment hastened by an external review emphasizing her groundbreaking work. When I began my academic journey, we hired our first female faculty member in 1978; today, medical school admissions typically reflect a 60/40 women-to-men ratio, a significant shift from the 25/75 ratio of the late 1970s.
Such histories are more recent than many perceive, and a regression to past norms seems increasingly plausible.
Part the Second: The Essential Summary of the Current State of American Science. American science is in turmoil: What led us here?
Across the nation, countless scientists are grappling with similar issues. Thousands of federal grants have been frozen or canceled, leaving approximately 2,600 still unresolved — a total of about $1.4 billion. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are issuing grants at only 75% of their usual capacity. Enrollment in graduate programs is declining, and nearly 95,000 scientists have exited federal employment. In previous years, the NIH would issue as many as 850 “Notices of Funding Opportunity” annually—requests for specific research proposals. By 2025, this number plummeted to just 120, with only 14 issued by mid-March 2026.
…
Of course, it’s essential to remember that the aim of science should be the advancement of knowledge, not merely securing funding or tenure. However, the recent wave of arbitrary cancellations and delays in funding distribution is unprecedented, with many decisions driven by political motives—such as rejecting proposals that reference diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—being entirely unthinkable until now.
The author precisely identifies a turning point with the Bayh-Dole Act, enacted during the administration of Jimmy Carter, the first neoliberal president:
In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, transferring ownership of outcomes from government-funded university research from the government to institutions of higher learning. This allowed for substantial financial incentives for universities, aligning them with venture capitalists and shifting the emphasis from state-funded research to profit-driven outcomes.
Be sure to read the complete article when you have the opportunity; it serves as an invaluable resource for understanding these complex issues.
Another insightful commentary featured in Science regarding the Research Project Grant adds context to the discussion, also highlighting the unique legacy of Bell Labs, often seen as a pioneering entity in the landscape of scientific research:
The proposed reforms seem theoretically sound: instead of compelling scientists to chase grant money, provide them with stable institutional support; rather than funding discrete projects, finance individuals and organizations. The vision is reminiscent of Bell Labs: the industrial laboratory responsible for innovations such as the transistor and laser, achieved without the constraints of traditional grant applications.
Yet, a fundamental misunderstanding persists — Bell Labs operated as the research arm of a regulated monopoly, AT&T, funded directly by consumers and not subject to the typical public bureaucratic restraints. The inspiration for X-Labs may be misaligned, with better models residing in established systems like Germany’s Max Planck Institutes, France’s Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and the national labs under the U.S. Department of Energy.
What the Research Project Grant accomplishes is often overlooked; the funding follows the investigator. Scientists who receive inadequate treatment can navigate away with their funding, lending them significant negotiating power. Furthermore, the system provides diverse avenues for funding—NSF, DOE, NIH, various foundations—allowing for out-of-favor paradigms to find support elsewhere. The NIH, for instance, issues nearly 40,000 RPG awards yearly, a robust portfolio that could facilitate random experimentation and rigorous self-assessment, providing a resource not easily replicated by a handful of X-Labs.
It’s conceivable that the next administration may reassess how science is supported in the U.S., but the prevailing trajectory hints at a decline accompanied by broader socio-political upheaval.
Part the Third: Positive Developments from NIH. The U.S. harbors numerous former industrial sites deeply contaminated with hazardous substances. Recently, the National Institutes of Health has granted $15 million to Emory University to study the health impacts surrounding these sites:
After years of pollution, residents in Brunswick now have a resource dedicated to exploring the relationship between local Superfund sites and public health.
This five-year initiative will investigate how environmental contaminants affect human well-being, following a 2023 pilot study involving about 100 Glynn County residents, spearheaded by Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health.
Emory will collaborate with faculty from the University of Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Morehouse School of Medicine, Spelman College, and Texas Tech University.
“By merging advanced exposure science with community-based health research, this center aims to transform complex environmental data into actionable insights for families, healthcare providers, and policymakers,” stated Dana Barr, a professor at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health and director of the new Superfund Research Center.
Having a good understanding of the major sites involved, I’ve seen firsthand the lasting effects of industrial negligence. These sites serve as reminders of our previous carelessness regarding environmental stewardship, a norm from an era when the world felt more expansive and less burdened by our waste. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon administration marked a significant acknowledgment of these issues. While cleaning up areas might be a daunting task, this initiative represents a proactive effort towards understanding the harm inflicted upon our land, water, and communities.
As a supporter of 100 Miles, I extend my gratitude to the scientists undertaking this vital research, with thanks to the NIH for their financial support. We anticipate findings that will underscore several “social determinants of health” that this administration may dismiss as fictional. The insights gained could extend to numerous similar sites across the U.S., like the notorious Cancer Alley, which is thoroughly examined in Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild.
Part the Fourth: Yeasts, Our Friends in the Laboratory. One of my objectives in this discussion has been to elucidate how biological and biomedical research is conducted in laboratory settings. Throughout my career, I have employed a variety of unconventional experimental systems, from the single-celled organism Thecamonas trahens to jellyfish and mice. Although yeast may seem unusual to non-scientists, they have become a fundamental tool in many laboratories. An informative piece titled The Rise of Yeast as a Model Organism in Biology highlights their significance:
For millennia, yeast has been integral to our history, transforming flour into bread, grapes into wine, and grain into beer. Yet, yeast offers far more than a culinary staple; it provides insights into fundamental cellular processes and the broader realm of human biology.
During the latter half of the 20th century, researchers primarily relied on mammalian systems, such as mouse and human cells, for studying eukaryotic functions. However, this reliance on higher organisms limited exploration into simpler, equally informative systems.
One researcher, Leland Hartwell, began to challenge this norm. In 1964, while working under virologist Renato Dulbecco at the Salk Institute, Hartwell felt trapped with mammalian cells. He remarked, “I felt like I wasn’t going to get anywhere with human cells… There just weren’t technologies to allow us to really ask fundamental questions.” Striving for a new direction, he shifted focus to yeast.
Why are yeasts so effective in research? They are small, economical to cultivate, genetically manipulable, and our closest relatives at the cellular level. Without yeast studies, our understanding of cell division regulation would be significantly hindered. Hartwell played a pivotal role in identifying many genes governing cell division, and his subsequent work paved the way for revealing commonalities between yeast and human proteins:
Exploring homologs of budding yeast’s CDC28 in fission yeast S. pombe, Paul Nurse cloned a DNA sequence from budding yeast to identify its role in cell cycle progression and division. Despite initial skepticism regarding the potential for cross-organism functionality, the team successfully demonstrated that a human counterpart worked effectively in yeast, establishing the conservation of mechanisms regulating the cell cycle across eukaryotes.
This groundbreaking research culminated in a Nobel Prize in 2001 for Nurse. I, too, benefited from the “awesome power of yeast genetics” in my own doctoral research, which could not have flourished using any other model.
So, when questioned about why yeast research receives grants, it’s vital to acknowledge that many cancer treatments target proteins first identified in these fungal organisms. On a personal note, one of the highlights of my career was an extended conversation with the late Ira Herskowitz, whose insights profoundly impacted me and will remain cherished memories.
Part the Fifth: Another Response to Our Impending AI World. Recently, the Front Porch Republic has published thought-provoking commentary regarding the implications of Artificial Intelligence. Teddy Macker’s piece, In Defense of Our Country: On the Need to Resist AI and AI Data Centers, highlights concerns raised by various commentators, including less recognized voices like Phillip Sherrard:
The physical world, perceived as void of life, becomes a terrain for humanity’s unchecked exploitation for practical gains. This misguided application of science—often more an expression of profound ignorance—has resulted in destabilization, degradation, and destruction, affecting both our environment and societal well-being.
These sentiments may appear harsh, yet their validity resonates deeply. Macker’s reflection on the implications of AI is encapsulated in a parable about a man riding a horse:
“Thich Nhat Hanh tells of a rider galloping along without knowing where they are headed. When asked about their destination, the rider replies, ‘I don’t know! Ask the horse!’”
This serves as a metaphor for America’s uncertain trajectory regarding AI. Although it may seem we lack clarity about this technology’s direction, deeper contemplation reveals that we are, in fact, aware of its implications.
Even without extensive knowledge, individuals can shape our nation’s future. Echoing Thomas Jefferson, we are the rightful stewards of our democracy and must assert our roles in safeguarding it.
So far, what has AI contributed that we didn’t have before? The rise of deep fakes has eroded trust in information sources and fostered “cognitive surrender” among both educators and learners. Additionally, many artists and musicians have faced unemployment as a result of AI disruption; tragic events, such as the recent casualties during an unnecessary conflict, only add to this dismay.
Concerns arise as it becomes clear that some AI pioneers express distrust towards democracy and even entertain sinister concepts like eugenics. Reports of elaborate “doomsday bunkers” and proposals for “non-human corporations” operated solely by AI cast a shadow on the future of human oversight.
Will AI create breakthroughs in combating cancer? Perhaps, but it is important to remember that collaborative human intelligence is essential for driving such advancements.
Macker aptly quotes Jesuit priest and scientist Teilhard de Chardin:
“We can no longer afford to isolate our deepest understandings—apprehension of the sacred and the fundamental unity underlying reality—from the affairs of our communities and our Earth. Recognizing these core beliefs fosters humility and a commitment to care for the world we share.”
The concepts of “holy,” “whole,” and “health” share a common foundation, a truth that should never be disregarded.
Conclusion: Embracing Change for a Healthier Future As we navigate this complex landscape in science, medicine, and technology, it is essential to recognize the interconnectedness of these fields. Challenges abound, but so do opportunities for growth and collaboration. By standing together and advocating for comprehensive support, we can foster a brighter, healthier future for all. Thank you for reading! We look forward to sharing more insights with you next week!
