I worked at two National Laboratories, Argonne and Idaho, on NSF funded internship grants. The second one turned into a full time job, again on an NSF grant.<p>The first one was on supercomputing, writing proof of concept code for a new supercomputing operating system (ZeptoOS). The second was on the automated stitching of imagery from UAVs for military applications (at a time when this was not commoditized at all, we were building UAVs in a garage and I was writing code derived from research papers).<p>Seeing all the programs that launched my career get dismantled like this is really saddening. There are/were thousands and thousands of college students getting exposed to cutting edge research via these humble programs, and I assume that is all now over. It didn't even cost much money. I got paid a pretty low stipend, which was nonetheless plenty to sustain my 20 year old self just fine. I think the whole program may have cost the government maybe $10k total.<p>$10k to build knowledge of cutting edge science that filters into industry. $10k to help give needed manpower to research projects that need it. $10k to give people who otherwise didn't have a road into science, exactly what they need to get their foot in the door.<p>I don't know how to describe what's happening here, but it's really, really stupid.
I have been in and out of the academic world my entire career. I have worked as a programmer/engineer for two universities and a national lab, and worked at a startup founded by some professors. There is huge uncertainty with the people whom I have worked with, nobody seems to be sure what is going to happen, but it feels like it wont be good. Hiring freezes, international graduate students receiving emails to self deport, and at my last institute many people's funding now no longer supports travel for attend conferences (a key part of science!).<p>One of the interesting pieces of science that I think a lot of people don't think about is strategic investment. At one point I was paid from a government grant to do high power laser research. Of course there were goals for the grant, but the grant was specifically funded so that the US didn't lose the knowledge of HOW to build lasers. The optics field for example is small, and there are not that many professors. It is an old field, most of the real research is in the private industry. However what happens if a company goes out of business? If we don't have public institutions with the knowledge to train new generations then information can and will be lost.
The NSF budget is ~$10billion. That's about half of NASA's, 1.2% of the DoD's, 0.5% of the discretionary budget ($1.7 trillion).<p>Why is this the focus of the admin? Science is one of the few things the US is doing well.
The fastest way for the US to lose its competitive edge and status as global leader is to reduce funding for scientific research and academic institutions. They are the Crown Jewels and the primary attraction for talent from around the world.<p>The damage for the next four years is done. The question is, even if there's a major shift back to sanity with the next prez elections, it'll take years to build up trust and the mechanisms, find and hire talented people willing to do the work, or even find enough talent because of all the grad students and post-docs that are _not_ employed by research labs in the next four years.<p>It'll take at least a decade to recover, and that may be optimistic. If others fill the gap (China will try but their credibility is low, which is the US's only saving grace), this could be a permanent degradation of the US's research capabilities.<p>Insane.
"In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards."<p>I wonder if doge is using ML systems to do this kind of review in a far more centralized way across all of government. With the kind of data they have -- obtained by extra-legal means, a.k.a. theft -- they could exert a lot of control over crucial funding decisions.<p>The system is a Wild West almost by design. It evolved to prevent misuse. Not perfect, but hard to control quickly by a single authority. To me it seems doge is doing a centralization play so it can implement any directive from the great technoking.
It's hard to understate what a drain this is on scientific productivity beyond the direct impact of the budget cuts. It's also just a tremendous distraction - trying to figure out what the various vaguely worded statements mean, wondering if your program is next even if you've escaped for the moment, worrying about how to keep your people employed - especially since the number of other places that could take them are shrinking.<p>There's an incredible amount of cognitive burden just on <i>doing</i> science right now, and it's very difficult to feel like writing new proposals, working on long term projects, etc. is worthwhile.
We absolutely cannot let science be hit by 50% budget cuts at NSF and NIH. It would be absolutely devastating to our standing in the world. Scientists will ABSOLUTELY leave to Europe and Canada to continue our research. I know that I would.
<i>Last week, staff were briefed on a new process for vetting grant proposals that are found to be out of step with a presidential directive on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),...<p>In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards.</i><p>So they're going to install gatekeepers to shoot down anything that even hints at DEI. I assume members will be hand picked by the Emperor from a Moms for Liberty short list.
Too bad science.org already put themselves behind an impenatrable cloudflare wall. Here is the actual article as text instead of CF javascript: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250509014125/https://www.science.org/content/article/exclusive-nsf-faces-radical-shake-officials-abolish-its-37-divisions" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250509014125/https://www.scien...</a>
It's really past time that adults stopped this madness. The mouth-breathing children should not be allowed because of brr-brr-process-brr-brr to literally dismantle the work of generations and genius.<p>It's not just the NSF, it's the entire functional federal government.<p>If you're wondering when it's time to literally shut down the country with a national strike? That time has already passed and that state persists until the children and put on time out.
The NSF is a big part of the startup community in the US: sponsoring pitch competitions; partnering with universities; educating scientists on entrepreneurship, business, and commercialization.<p>It's sad to see this administration attacking startups and entrepreneurship in the US. Startup community volunteers will have to work that much harder at a time when traditional employment is less and less palatable.
"The consolidation appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $4 billion budget by 55% for the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October."<p>This statement is wrong. What a sad state of affairs Science Magazine has become. It should read, "The proposal is to cut the budget by 55% to $4 billion."<p>The 2024 budget was $9.06 billion and the 2025 request was $10.183 billion.[1]<p>[1]<a href="https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget#budget-baf" rel="nofollow">https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget#budget-baf</a>
In 2023, the NSF said it gave 9,400 research awards at an average of $239,700 each [1]. That's $2.25 billion. That year, the NSF has a budget of $10.5 billion [2]. Can somebody with more insight into the NSF explain where the NSF money goes?<p>My PhD was largely funded through government grants, though not the NSF. To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadblocks rather than enablers. There were many opportunities to streamline processes that would help researchers spend more time researching and less time on bureaucratic overhead.<p>[1] <a href="https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/04_fy2025.pdf?VersionId=q0fBHsXL64lkqb.1yBHrQJwoo9nZMs4L" rel="nofollow">https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/04_fy2025.pdf?Versio...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/appropriations" rel="nofollow">https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/appropriations</a>
As the article mentions, this is part of a 55% cut in budget. So this is not a reorganization but a cut to research funding of at least half. It's potentially an even harsher cut as grants are only part of the budget and they might have to cut even more grants to still finance other obligations from less than half the budget.<p>The goal seems to be simply to destroy the current research system, and to have the bit that remains forced to adhere to an ideologically pure "anti-woke" course.
As an outsider this artcle is unclear to me. Is this a (middle)management restructuring, cutting down the bureaucratic overhead, or will less actual projects be funded?<p>(I get some here are upset about the DEI stuff being weeded out, but that is not what my question is about)
While I support cuts and reforms, I'm a bit saddened and worried by cuts at NSF. Most of the best work I've shared here was funded by NSF. The private sector largely wasn't doing it. If they did, the deliverables weren't free but <i>sometimes</i> were when NSF funded. I'd hate to see those types of grants go.<p>That said, there is an ideological difference driving this on at least two points (if ignoring DEI etc).<p>One, taxes are taken from individuals to be spent on the government's priorities. Good, evil, or just wasteful... you have no say. If private donations, then you can fund the people and efforts you value most with <i>your</i> money. Conservatives say your money should be yours as much as possible which requires cutting NSF, etc.<p>Second, private individuals and businesses decide most of what happens in the markets. The problems in the markets are really their responsibility. If it needs NSF funding, the private parties are probably already failing to make that decision or see it as a bad one. Private, market theory says it's better to let markets run themselves with government interventions mostly blocking harmful behaviors. Ex: If nobody funds or buys secure systems, let them have the consequences of the insecure systems they want so much. Don't fund projects that nobody is buying or selling.<p>Those are two, large drivers in conservative policy that will exist regardless of other, political beliefs. Those arguing against it are saying the people running the government are more trustworthy with our money. Yet, they're crying out against what the current government is doing. Do they really trust them and want all those resources controlled by the latest administration? Or retain control of their own money to back, as liberals, what they belief in?
> appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $4 billion budget by 55%<p>NSF is essentially investing in the future and $4B is already a very small amount compared to the whole federal budget. If anything NSF's budget should be increased. Why are they looking to save pocket change when the real money is in the DoD?
Being anti-science is a core characteristic of fascist ideology [1], nothing about this is surprising.<p>Academics appear to be biased to the left because the right explicitly hates science and rationality, not because of "wokeism" or "transgender ideology" or "cultural marxism" or whatever red herring fascists currently favor.<p>> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.<p>- Isaac Asimov, <i>A cult of ignorance</i>, 1980<p>This cult of ignorance is purely a right-wing one.<p>[1] <a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism" rel="nofollow">https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...</a>
most research is useless science for the sake of science, the vast majority of research publications are not moving humanity forward<p>you can have a whole career based on getting funding for experiments that don’t actually work
www.science.org
Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds.<p>www.science.org needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
"According to sources who requested anonymity for fear of retribution..."<p>This is equally worrying. Sounds like people living in a dictatorship reporting to a foreign news channel. Not quite there, yet.
All of this makes more sense when you realize that it has nothing to do with saving money or reducing the deficit. It's all about causing fear and uncertainty, and reducing structural defenses against the grifting and looting connected to TFG's friends.
Think of any technology you use today, it started as a government grant (either NSF, DARPA, DOE, etc).<p>Looks like the Trump administration is trying to cripple US science and technology research and I don't understand why.
<a href="https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/leaked-interview-with-nih-director" rel="nofollow">https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/leaked-interv...</a><p>KAISER: Okay, so since you brought it up, kind of skipping around here, but so as you know, as you may not have seen the story. But we had heard it too, that there's going to be a policy canceling collaborations, foreign collaborations.<p>BHATTACHARYA: No, that's false.<p>KAISER: Is there going to be some sort of policy that...<p>BHATTACHARYA: There was a policy, there's going to be policy on tracking subawards.<p>KAISER: What does it mean?<p>BHATTACHARYA: I mean, if you're going to give a subaward, we should be able—the NIH and the government should be able see where the money's going.
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this.<p>US's global superiority has largely been driven by programs like the NSF, making the US the world leader for r&d and inventing completely new industries.<p>Why would you completely gut these programs with such amazing ROI?<p>Putting my conspiracist hat on, it seems like this only benefits countries like China/Russia that want to weaken the US.
Hmm the budget is supposed to be approved by congress is it not?
Trump can certainly tell people what he thinks the funding should be,
but until a budget is voted through it is not final?<p>Or does this agency fall under the White House direct financing of some sort?
It's hard to believe that this is anything other than a MAGA plan to enshittify scientific research and gut it to allow the flourishing of crank papers and conspiracy theory "experts" in the "science they don't want you to know about"
I feel compelled to once again ask the only mildly rhetorical question: “If Trump was actually acting under directives from Russia what would his administration be doing differently?”
A big motivation for the Trump administration seems to be the politicization that happened under the Biden regime. There were many large NSF grants given to fund "education" and they were pretty much focused on people with the preferred racial and gender status. These were also substantial grants that were often 3-10 times bigger than the regular grants given to regular scientists. This created much jealousy as well as other practical problems.<p>The Science article suggests that there's danger of politicization, but that has been the case for many years.
Isn’t this what everyone voted for?<p>I assume this is just more of the same neo-liberalists’ Heritage Foundation at play here. No one is saying science shouldn’t science. Just that the government shouldn’t be in the business of funding it.<p>How else will Elon Musk make his next billion if he doesn’t get to invest in your research and sell it off after your 2 year time is up?
Having employees of academic institutions doing the vetting
sounds like it could easily evolve into a conflict of interest.<p>""
The initial vetting is handled by hundreds of program officers, all experts in their field and some of whom are on temporary leave from academic positions.
""
> A spokesperson for NSF says the rationale for abolishing the divisions and removing their leaders is “to reduce the number of SES [senior executive service] positions in the agency and create new non-executive positions to better align with the needs of the agency.”<p>Reducing bureaucracy is not the same as cutting science funding.
This isn't about science, issues, or voting. The message is: "We don't like you and it would be better if you weren't around".<p>Also, why is NSF fielding 40,000 proposals per year? That is 110 proposals per day. Is there really that much science to perform and not enough universities to host it? Not at all. It exists because every state and local government and educational institution is incentivized to solicit federal aid. Even if a school is located in Beverly Hills, federal aid will be solicited at all levels in K-12 and higher education. Republicans are saying they don't want anything to do with that level of centralized government.