I am writing this column at the end of April, days after the abrupt dismissal of the US National Science Board members. This body provides oversight and strategic direction for the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and is a devastating loss for US science. The NSF also continues to operate without a qualified candidate for permanent director. The prospect of political appointees—not scientists—making funding decisions is alarming for the future of research and its integrity. Within days, the Biophysical Society released a statement denouncing this action by the Administration.
It is simultaneously a slow-as-mud-on-cold-day and a rapidly changing scientific landscape. It is election season in the United States, which means that Congress is unlikely to pass a budget until after November, and the officials voting on the fiscal year 2027 (FY 2027) budget might even be newly elected members of Congress when the vote finally happens. This budget delay has a silver lining in that the FY 2027 negotiations are still being discussed and debated well beyond the “normal” schedule. Despite the draconian cuts to science proposed both last year and this year by the executive branch, Congress has a strong history of bipartisan support for science funding. The Society and its members advocated for increased funding back in March on a Hill Day at the Capitol. The “ask” for science funding increases must continue through summer. Each of you can sustain this advocacy effort by visiting your elected officials in their home offices, by attending town halls they hold in their districts, and by calling or writing them with your concerns. These individual acts of advocacy can be very effective, and they work even better when many of us participate.
While you are making the case for science, there are several arguments that can be effective. Just like giving a science seminar, it is important to know your audience so that you can have the biggest impact. Find the common ground between you and your representative and seek to speak their language. What is important to your representative? What is important in your district? Are you located in a biotech-intensive area? Or are you situated where there are several major universities? Jobs and the economy are one universal currency for elected officials. The economic argument for science funding is an easy one to make because the return on investment is nearly three-fold for every dollar invested. Although data is the language we speak to each other, share an anecdote instead to bring the points home. It can be as simple as, “I moved to Maryland because I got a job here. I would like to stay here, but it depends on science funding.”
Even while we wait for the FY 2027 budget to pass, the slowness of the times is frustrating on the ground at this moment, because grant money is being awarded at an unprecedented slow pace. This has real-life consequences for our members and their ability to be paid, to hire junior scientists, and to train and welcome students. All indications are that the professional staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NSF are doing their very best under trying circumstances. On Hill Day, we were instructed to contact our congresspeople if funding is not coming through as it should be.
If this all feels overwhelming, let me simplify it: be like a swarm of ants at a picnic this summer. Be numerous. Be purposeful. And ask for what you want straight up: I want to see the NIH and NSF budgets funded at their full levels. Your representatives want your vote. They need to earn it. And if you are eligible to vote, make sure you are registered.
In addition to picnics, moving into summer hopefully will give each of us some uninterrupted time to finish those last few experiments, to write papers or grants, or to spend more time with trainees. Discovery and training are the core of how we contribute to society, and continued great science will only strengthen our case when we advocate for research support.
—Karen G. Fleming, President