A silver lining to US research funding woes
News Grab: Good morning. It's now 5.35 here in the east. We are allowing all of our stations across the country to join us. Now with the breaking news, we are projecting at this hour the 47th president of the United States. Uh, Donald Trump will be, uh, elected to return to the White House.
Belinda Smith: Since President Donald Trump retook office, the state of scientific research in the States has been well precarious, to say the least. The administration immediately implemented a federal spending freeze, so that included government funded grants and has proposed billions of dollars in cuts to science and health research. Billions with a B. It's just so hard to keep up with all of this, and it's not even been six months. The silver lining is that other countries like Australia are taking advantage of the situation and targeting programs at US researchers. ABC Health reporter, Olivia Willis, has been looking into this and she joins me now. So Liv, what's the latest out of the states when it comes to research funding?
Olivia Willis: So since Trump's return to office in January, there's been. As you say, a real frenzy of government funding freezes, cuts, executive orders, all of which have had a major impact on scientific and medical research on national science and health agencies in the us um, but also science and health funding in, in many parts of the world that are reliant on US funding and that includes, uh, researchers in Australia.
We know that so far. Well over a thousand research grants have been terminated at government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. Together, those total, several billions of dollars, and there's many more grants that have also been flagged for review.
And then on top of that, hundreds of staff have been cut from some of these federal agencies that I mentioned, as well as. The Centers for Disease Control, the FDA and the Trump administration has also targeted specific universities, many of which are Ivy League schools, places like Harvard and Columbia, and frozen their federal funding if they don't comply with a set of demands that the government has laid out.
And they're often things related to affirmative action, diversity initiatives, um, campus protests and so on. Big picture for year, the White House budget. Their proposal now is to cut. The National Institutes of Health, their budget by 40%, and the National Science Foundation's budget by 55%. So very, very significant.
I will say that thinking broadly about these cuts, the government has said that they're essentially about eliminating waste and bias in government funded research. But I think, you know, they're also the result of efforts to combat what the Trump administration has described as gender, ideology, um, and an executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
So we know that many of the cancel grants or grants under review focus on marginalized and underrepresented groups, uh, racial and ethnic minorities. So groups that have, have been largely understudied historically, and the Trump administration perhaps doesn't see this type of research as benefiting broadly the health of all Americans.
Belinda Smith: What other areas of faced cuts?
Olivia Willis: There's also research areas that have lost funding simply because they're not priorities of the Trump administration or, or I guess the government doesn't see them as fitting in with their own scientific agenda. So things like research into vaccine misinformation, uh, hiv aids, climate science, clean energy.
I should note that this is a really fast moving situation and things will probably change. So we know that a number of lawsuits have been launched against the government regarding these funding freezes and cuts. Some of them have been successful. Just a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that the cancellation of more than $1 billion in research grants at the National Institutes of Health.
That they were illegal in order for them to be reinstated. It looks like the government will file an appeal on that judgment, but in the meantime, staff at at certain agencies have been instructed not to cancel any further grants. So it's definitely a fast moving, unfolding dynamic situation. I.
Belinda Smith: And may get dragged through the courts for months and months to come.
Olivia Willis: I think so.
Belinda Smith: Mm. What have these cuts done to researchers?
Olivia Willis: Well, I think it's probably important to think about the context of how significant the US is as a player in research funding globally. So. It's, it's one of the biggest funders in the world of research and development. The National Institutes of Health alone is the biggest funder of medical research globally.
A huge number of researchers around the world would benefit off funding from that agency. Um, and in 2023, it was estimated that the US actually provided 30% of all global r and d funding. So you can. Get a sense there from just how much they contribute to what those cuts would mean in terms of specific research fields.
There's, you know, we're seeing areas of research, I guess, that have been threatened because huge chunks of their funding have been wiped out. And then for the researchers. The people who work at these federal agencies, a lot of people have lost their jobs, um, or their funding. That of course includes principal investigators and professors, but also early career researchers, PhD students, people who rely on scholarships.
And I think the other thing is that for many scientists, it appears to have really created, I guess, a climate of, of fear and worry about their jobs and the viability of their research long term.
Belinda Smith: You are listening to Belinda Smith on the Science Show, and I'm talking to health reporter Olivia Willis, about the state of research funding in the United States.
Now, I've seen reports of countries that are seeing this as an opportunity for them to really beef up their local scientific expertise and try and get that US talent to relocate to their countries and establish their research programs There. What's been going on in that space and what's Australia's done?
Olivia Willis: Yeah, we are, so there's several European universities that have set up initiatives. Um, countries like France and Canada are actively recruiting. The European Commission recently announced 500 million euros to make Europe a magnet for researchers in the next two years. So I suspect that's going to be a popular location for some US scientists when it comes to Australia.
There are a number of research institutes. That I know have received really significant interest from US researchers since these cuts have happened. And recruiting scientists is something that the Australian Academy of Science is actively working on. So in April, they set up a program to nationally coordinate this recruitment effort.
It's called the Global Talent Attraction Program, and I recently spoke to the academy's chief executive, Anna Maria Arabia, about this.
Anna-Maria Arabia: We know that talent is everywhere. Uh, but opportunity is not everywhere. And, uh, this is a, an initiative to attract to Australia leading talent that we know, uh, builds capability in Australia that builds our, uh, scientific talent pool.
Um, that enables scientific advancements and industries, um, to be seeded and to grow. Um, importantly, talent like this train and mentor, the next generation of young Australian scientists, uh, we know it creates jobs. Um, and, and we know science and technology is part of a really, um, rapid, uh, global race at the moment.
Belinda Smith: So the Australian Academy of Sciences calls this a global talent attraction program, but it sounds quite targeted to the us
Olivia Willis: Yeah, that's right. So at least initially it is specifically for US scientists, um, and also Australian scientists in the US who are wanting to return home. As I mentioned, in April, they launched the program and that was about essentially getting funders for it and people to kind of support this research.
But it was actually just this week that they've announced that applications for the program are now open.
Belinda Smith: So it's early days yet really in terms of getting people involved in the program that might be interested in coming to Australia. Do you know if the Australian Academy of Sciences has any priorities in terms of the, the types of research that they're particularly interested in attracting?
Olivia Willis: So the program itself, they've described as discipline agnostic, meaning I think that it, it's not limited to any specific areas of research. That being said, when I spoke to Anna Maria Arabia about it, she told me that one of the reasons they wanted to launch it was so they could assess applications against Australia's.
What they call capability gaps. So she talked about areas like data science, statistics, mathematics, um, all being areas that as a kind of research landscape we need to bolster and also touched on issues about the fact that our population is aging, that we need to decarbonize. So it sounds like there will be.
Some kind of strategic considerations that are made when they're looking at the types of, um, the, the areas of research that they want to bring more expertise in.
Anna-Maria Arabia: We are also looking at areas where there is just outstanding talent that we know if they were to come to Australia, there is no doubt that the multiplier effect and the impact of their contribution, uh, would be many times, uh, what it costs to bring them here.
It is the story of Australia. Uh, so many of our leading scientists today were born overseas. We look at our own fellowship, who Australia's most distinguished scientists, and we did account since 2017. Um, the fellows elected to the academy. 42% of them were born overseas. It is the Australian story. Uh, our research effort is relatively young and since World War II and so many of our stellar scientists, you only need to think of Professor Michelle Simmons or Lydia Roka or Brian Schmidt, all born abroad, all bought their capability here as young scientists who, who seeded, uh, talent here, who nurtured the next generation and have now built Um, research sectors and industries we could have only dreamed of.
Olivia Willis: So what does this program involve? So once the academy has identified scientists that they're interested in bringing to Australia, they'll work with universities and research institutes to look at. Basically where they can place them so the universities and the research organizations will host them.
And my understanding is the Academy's talent attraction program will provide the research funding and the relocation support.
Belinda Smith: Mm-hmm. And what about like local researchers? You know, it, it's, it's a, it's a tough old grind being scientists having to apply for grants and.
Olivia Willis: Is there any support for local people? It is a great question and it's something I put to her as well. You know, as you say, research funding is extremely competitive in Australia. A lot of researchers miss out, and so I asked whether that was a concern, you know, pouring funding into US scientists or international researchers when many of our own researchers are struggling to get grants.
Anna-Maria Arabia: I think we should do everything we can in Australia to nurture young talent, but I feel that these are related, but separate strategies. Uh, so to those young researchers, I would say, uh, through this program we are attracting to Australia, uh, individuals who will inspire you, who will mentor and train you. Um, and provide opportunities that don't exist today. They are not taking away money that would otherwise go to support early career researchers. In fact, they create opportunities for them.
Belinda Smith: That was Anna Maria Arabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science and ABC Health reporter Olivia Willis, filling us in on the US research funding situation. And now a story of scientific endeavor from our shores. Come with me and let's take a trip back to 2013.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Bigger properties occupied by smaller households in major housing mismatch, Cotality finds
In a reminder of how broken housing affordability and access is, new analysis highlights a major mismatch between the size of Australian homes and the number of people living in them. While the vast bulk of Australian housing is built for larger families, property research firm Cotality has found more than 60 per cent of households are made up of just one or two people. It reveals a misalignment between "who lives in our homes and the kinds of homes we're building", Cotality's head of head of Australian research Eliza Owen said in the report. "Of the lone-person households in Australia, the data suggests around 40 per cent are aged 65 and over," Ms Owen said. "The highest share of households is two people, but the highest share of housing has three bedrooms. "While there's nothing wrong with more bedrooms than people in a dwelling, there could be some inefficiencies in the way housing is being allocated," Ms Owen said. "After all, a 'traditional' family of four may have more need for a three-bedroom dwelling than a household of two people." The report cited data from the 2021 Census, which showed there were more two-person family households in three-bedroom dwellings (about 1.3 million), than three or four-person family households (about 1.1 million). Ms Owen has suggested a way to fix the "efficiency question", which she knows is not politically appealing — send a price signal. "Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than you need, and cheaper to live in smaller housing," she wrote in her research note. She said that logic often leads to calls for tax reform including abolishing stamp duty to cheaper to move between housing, replacing it with a broad-based land tax (which raises costs the more land you own). "These options are both politically difficult as it would involve moving from a tax that applies to a small amount of voters each year who purchase property to one that will tax two thirds of voters (property owners)," she noted. Independent housing researcher Cameron Kusher, speaking to The Business in July, argued high transaction costs, namely stamp duty, discourage moving to a "better sized property" and can lead to people purchasing larger homes than they need to begin with. "People just feel like if I can get a better and bigger home sooner, that's a better outcome," he said. "If we look at what is being built, it's usually very large houses, four or five bedrooms, taking up most of the land on these new housing sites," Mr Kusher said. "A lot of it comes down to how much a piece of a property, [and] how much the land and the house, costs. "I think a lot of people are building bigger homes, thinking 'I'll spend a little bit more up-front and my family will grow into this home'. "It might just be a couple grandkids, or they're planning to have a couple of kids." He noted the effects of rapidly increasing property prices, which can leave people priced out of re-entering the market, and the fact that larger properties can be more likely to appreciate in value at a faster pace. Cotality's Ms Owen said other policy options to encourage people to move into appropriately sized homes could include reforming pension asset tests to include the value of the family home. "Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in our larger cities, that can accommodate smaller households. "But shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these new homes." The government has accepted it is not on track to meet the target to build 1.2 million homes in five years, but Treasurer Jim Chalmers has stood by the ambition, despite Treasury advice it would not be met. In another recent note, Ms Owen questioned the focus of state and federal governments on speeding up building approvals to boost housing supply, warning that the construction industry simply cannot keep pace. "With completion times already above average and construction costs elevated, it seems an odd time to be incentivising more dwelling approvals and commencements," she said. Cameron Kusher argued past experience could be a guide on how to approach today's housing problems and ease the construction crunch. "Maybe we need to go back to how things were 30 or 40 years ago, where you have smaller homes and you make them easy to renovate," he told The Business. "Over time, people can actually add bedrooms, bathrooms, car parks, verandahs and all these sorts of things to add value to the home.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘First contact': Fears as alien object speeds toward earth
A mystery object tearing towards Earth at break-neck speed has raised fears that aliens are on their way here. Scientists warn that the odd entity, which astronomers are calling 31/Atlas, could be an ET craft set to launch probes on our planet. Estimated at more than 12 miles (19 kilometres) wide, it is whizzing through our solar system on a trajectory that will bring it within about 170 million miles (274 million kilometres) of us on December 19. A trio of scientists from Harvard University, led by astrophysicist Avi Loeb, have published a paper speculating whether it could be 'hostile' extraterrestrial technology. Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFOs for the UK's Ministry of Defence, said: 'It is not beyond the realms of science fiction that 31/Atlas could be an alien spaceship of some kind. 'It's an unusual size, unusual acceleration, unusual course and unusual behaviour — those things combined very closely match a sort of mapping or survey mission. 'Of course, this could turn out to be just a comet or an asteroid — albeit an interstellar one, so interesting and incredibly rare. 'The good thing is this is a testable hypothesis. 'The clock is ticking down. We will know soon enough whether we're dealing with first contact … or just a big rock.' Here, Nick sets out the six key theories proposed by Harvard experts. 1. It's too large to be an asteroid. We do know asteroids in our solar system range in size but this is much bigger than average 2. Its rate of acceleration seems unusual for a natural object. The European Space Agency and Hubble space telescope calculate it is travelling at about 130,000mph (209,215km/h) NASA says at that speed, it is the fastest solar system visitor. 3. We spotted it very late. This was because it was coming in from the centre of the galaxy, where there are a lot of obstacles, light and stars. If you wanted to covertly send a probe into our solar system, this is exactly the course you would choose. 4. Its course makes it very hard to intercept. At critical points where it might do something technological, such as perform a non-natural manoeuvre, it is blocked by the sun. 5. Passing close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter. This is like a mapping or survey mission. There is a very low probability of that happening naturally — the report suggests close to 0.005 per cent. That is statistically minute. 6. We won't see it. At its closest approach, the sun will be between the Earth and Atlas so we won't be able to see it. Again, this is exactly the course you would choose, as it can do all its sneaky braking manoeuvres and changes of course without us seeing it. It might do one of two things if this is technological. It could change course and come to Earth itself. Or it could, if it's a mothership, deploy some probes that would come to Earth.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
John Menadue critiques Australia's media and our relationship with the United States
John Menadue has been at the heart of Australian public life for over fifty years, working for the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. He oversaw the effective end to Australia's White Australia Policy, was CEO of Qantas and set up the Centre for Policy Development. In the media he ran The Australian for Rupert Murdoch, launched the online weekly New Matilda and founded the influential public policy platform, Pearls and Irritations. Now aged ninety, John reflects on Australia's media, in particular its coverage of the war in Gaza, our attitudes to race relations, AUKUS, our relationship with the United States and how Australia is navigating its place in the world during a global power shift. Guest: John Menadue, Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations John Menadue, Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations Producer: Catherine Zengerer
