Latest news with #SethuramanPanchanathan
Forbes
11-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
The NSF Is Being Dismantled — With Broad Implications For The American Economy
Science magazine this week reported the latest development in a growing pattern of political disruption to American science: the National Science Foundation is eliminating all 37 of its research divisions, restructuring its grant-making process, laying off staff and canceling over $1 billion in already-awarded grants. The changes follow the resignation of Director Sethuraman Panchanathan and coincide with a proposed 55% cut to the agency's budget. This is not reform. It is a dismantling. The restructuring is widely seen as a response to political pressure from the executive branch, reflecting a broader effort to align federal science funding with emerging ideological priorities. In addition to diversity-related research, areas such as climate science, vaccination, HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 have all faced deep cuts. This shift has raised concerns within the scientific community about the potential narrowing of research scope and the implications for academic freedom and innovation. The economic consequences of restricting scientific inquiry on this scale could be far-reaching. The Institution That Powers the U.S. Scientific Enterprise For 75 years, the National Science Foundation has been the quiet backbone of American scientific progress. It funds a substantial share of all federally supported basic research outside the biomedical sphere, supporting discoveries in climate science, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum materials among many, many others. Its grants train graduate students, launch early-career faculty and sustain the open, reproducible research that fuels U.S. competitiveness. Yet even as science grows more essential, the federal share of basic research funding has been declining for decades — while private-sector investment has steadily increased. Now, NSF is being taken apart at the institutional level. The elimination of NSF's divisions will remove an essential layer of subject-matter oversight from the grant-making process. Division directors — scientists with deep expertise who currently approve nearly all funding decisions — will lose their authority. Instead, a new layer of review, governed by yet-unnamed officials, may vet proposals for ideological compliance. MORE FOR YOU WWE Backlash 2025 Results, Winners And Grades On May 10 WWE Backlash 2025 Results: John Cena Topples Randy Orton In St. Louis WWE Backlash 2025 Results: Gunther Demolishes Pat McAfee While described as a restructuring, the elimination of division directors effectively centralizes authority over funding decisions, shifting oversight away from subject-matter experts. Jeff Masters, former hurricane scientist with NOAA and co-founder of the popular weather reporting service Weather Underground, wrote on the social media platform Bluesky, 'This isn't about merit or budgets because NSF has a tiny imprint on the federal budget. This is all about controlling information and knowledge.' None of this is to deny that American science could benefit from change. Public research should serve the national interest. It should be transparent, open-access and aligned with real societal needs. Not every idea merits federal support. But there are better ways to modernize the research ecosystem — by improving data-sharing, strengthening accountability, developing special programs and expanding capacity — than by gutting trusted institutions and replacing them with opaque, politicized systems. We need reform, but not this kind. Undercutting Science Undercuts the Economy We also need to be clear about the costs of disinvestment. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — hardly a partisan institution — finds that nondefense government R&D yields long-run economic returns of 150% to 300% and accounts for roughly a quarter of American productivity growth since World War II. The authors, economists Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens, conclude bluntly: 'Our findings therefore point to a misallocation of public capital, and substantial underinvestment in nondefense R&D.' There is nothing wasteful or elitist about public investment in science. On the contrary, it is one of the most reliable drivers of shared prosperity — benefiting not just institutions or industries, but society as a whole. Now is the time to expand that commitment, not withdraw from it. A Looming Brain Drain Will Deepen The Crisis And when that investment falters, the consequences are not abstract. They show up in lost talent, missed opportunities and growing scientific gaps. The U.S. has long enjoyed a strategic advantage in the global competition for scientific talent. But that advantage is eroding. The scientific journal Nature recently reported a surge in American scientists seeking jobs abroad, citing funding instability, political interference and lack of institutional support. That's not just a brain drain — it's a signal of systemic distress. The real crisis at the NSF is not inefficiency or ideological drift. It is the abandonment of a national commitment to independent science. That commitment made the U.S. a global leader in innovation, education and discovery. And now, at a moment of historic challenges — from pandemics and climate change to artificial intelligence and national security — America is pulling back. The United States can improve how it funds science. America can do better on transparency, priority setting and community impact. But those are debates for a functioning system. Right now, the entire science ecosystem itself is under threat. The NSF doesn't need to be dismantled. Its investments need to be deepened and directed toward long-term impact. That means restoring its divisions, protecting peer review, rebuilding staff capacity and reaffirming its independence. It means increasing investment, not slashing it. And it means recognizing that science policy is not just about managing budgets — it is about shaping the future.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
National Science Foundation cuts more than $800,000 in grants for Ohio State
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The National Science Foundation has canceled more than 1,000 grants over the past few weeks under new guidelines preventing funding for diverse research. The NSF cancellations include at least five Ohio State University research projects, which were reported by DOGE and confirmed by a university spokesperson. According to DOGE, Ohio State lost more than $807,000 in funding between the five cancelled grants: A $31,736 grant about Indigenous communities and ecotourism cancelled three months early with $0.66 unpaid. A $296,209 grant exploring pathways for Black and Hispanic women in computer science cancelled with $54,588.60 unpaid. A $18,760 grant exploring the connection between identity and language cancelled three months early with $12,596.34 unpaid. A $445,606 grant about increasing gender diversity in the geosciences cancelled more than two years early with $316,700.14 unpaid. A $713,128 grant about retaining underrepresented groups in doctoral engineering programs cancelled more than a year early with $423,599.71 unpaid. Roosters near OSU expects to reopen in the fall In April, the NSF announced new guidelines for federal research. Under them, researchers may only look at specific identities or characteristics if it is crucial to the research, fills an important knowledge gap and does not try to broaden STEM opportunities for underrepresented groups. Researchers can still examine achievement gaps so long as the studies do not limit or preference participation based on identities. According to the NSF, any awards that did not align with the agency's new goals were terminated, including those focused on diversity, equity and inclusion or 'misinformation/disinformation.' See previous coverage of DOGE cuts to local programs in the video player above. The cancellations come amid a turbulent time for the NSF, with first term Trump appointee Sethuraman Panchanathan stepping down from the role he's held for years on April 24. Effective May 5, the agency also changed its reimbursement policy, capping indirect research reimbursements at just 15%. The change was challenged this week by a lawsuit filed by 13 universities and three university alliances or advocacy groups, including the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. Licking County governments in legal fight over growth Although Ohio State is not a plaintiff, it is a member of the land grant association. Including Ohio State, 11 of Ohio's 14 public universities are members. The lawsuit alleges the reimbursement cap will have enormous effects on research capabilities and budgeting, and could set discoveries and innovation back significantly. Ohio State is not unique in its cancellations. NSF cancellations include a University of Cincinnati project about diversity in doctoral programs and a Columbus State Community College grant working to increase diversity in the workplace. In total, Ohio State researchers lost $807,485.45 between the five canceled grants. 'We are grateful for the research support we receive from our federal partners as these investments literally save lives in Ohio and our nation,' university spokesperson Ben Johnson said. 'Across the university, research continues, which benefits farmers, patients, military personnel, law enforcement small businesses, and Ohioans, but we are closely monitoring and managing federal notifications that have impacted a number of our faculty and laboratories.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
09-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
The National Science Foundation Is Being Dismantled. What The Economy Needs Is More Investment
This week, Science magazine reported a stunning development: the National Science Foundation (NSF) is eliminating all 37 of its research divisions, restructuring its grantmaking process, laying off staff and canceling over $1 billion in already-awarded grants. The changes follow the resignation of Director Sethuraman Panchanathan and coincide with a proposed 55% cut to the agency's budget. This is not reform. It is a dismantling. The restructuring is widely seen as a response to political pressure from the executive branch, reflecting a broader effort to align federal science funding with emerging ideological priorities. In addition to diversity-related research, areas such as climate science, vaccination, HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 have all faced deep cuts. This shift has raised concerns within the scientific community about the potential narrowing of research scope and the implications for academic freedom and innovation. The economic consequences of restricting scientific inquiry on this scale could be far-reaching. For 75 years, the National Science Foundation has been the quiet backbone of American scientific progress. It funds a substantial share of all federally supported basic research outside the biomedical sphere, supporting discoveries in climate science, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum materials among many, many others. Its grants train graduate students, launch early-career faculty and sustain the open, reproducible research that fuels U.S. competitiveness. Yet even as science grows more essential, the federal share of basic research funding has been declining for decades—while private-sector investment has steadily increased. Now, NSF is being taken apart at the institutional level. The elimination of NSF's divisions will remove an essential layer of subject-matter oversight from the grantmaking process. Division directors—scientists with deep expertise who currently approve nearly all funding decisions—will lose their authority. Instead, a new layer of review, governed by yet-unnamed officials, may vet proposals for ideological compliance. This is not about streamlining bureaucracy. It is about centralizing control. None of this is to deny that American science could benefit from change. Public research should serve the national interest. It should be transparent, open-access and aligned with real societal needs. Not every idea merits federal support. But there are better ways to modernize the research ecosystem—by improving data-sharing, strengthening accountability, developing special programs and expanding capacity—than by gutting trusted institutions and replacing them with opaque, politicized systems. We need reform, but not this kind. We also need to be clear about the costs of disinvestment. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas—hardly a partisan institution—finds that nondefense government R&D yields long-run economic returns of 150% to 300%, and accounts for roughly a quarter of American productivity growth since World War II. The authors, economists Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens, conclude bluntly: There is nothing wasteful or elitist about public investment in science. On the contrary, it is one of the most reliable drivers of shared prosperity—benefiting not just institutions or industries, but society as a whole. Now is the time to expand that commitment, not withdraw from it. And when that investment falters, the consequences are not abstract. They show up in lost talent, missed opportunities and growing scientific gaps. The U.S. has long enjoyed a strategic advantage in the global competition for scientific talent. But that advantage is eroding. The scientific journal Nature recently reported a surge in American scientists seeking jobs abroad, citing funding instability, political interference and lack of institutional support. That's not just a brain drain—it's a signal of systemic distress The real crisis at the NSF is not inefficiency or ideological drift. It is the abandonment of a national commitment to independent science. That commitment made the U.S. a global leader in innovation, education and discovery. And now, at a moment of historic challenges—from pandemics and climate change to artificial intelligence and national security—we are pulling back. The United States can and should improve how it funds science. We can do better on transparency, priority-setting and community impact. But those are debates for a functioning system. Right now, the entire science ecosystem itself is under threat. The NSF doesn't need to be dismantled. Its investments need to be deepened and directed toward long-term impact. That means restoring its divisions, protecting peer review, rebuilding staff capacity and reaffirming its independence. It means increasing investment, not slashing it. And it means recognizing that science policy is not just about managing budgets—it is about shaping the future.
E&E News
06-05-2025
- Science
- E&E News
NSF chief said climate research would continue. Now he's gone — along with 60 programs.
President Donald Trump's choice to lead the National Science Foundation said last summer that global warming research would continue to be an agency priority if Trump were reelected because 'the Googles of climate should be in the United States.' That prediction from then-NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan seems to have widely missed the mark. Since returning to power, Trump has pulled funding from at least 60 climate-related research projects, according to a spreadsheet of canceled NSF grants obtained by POLITICO's E&E News. Advertisement That tally likely undercounts the impact of cancellations on NSF-backed climate studies because it includes only grants that specifically mention climate, energy, emissions or related terms in their project titles.
Scientific American
02-05-2025
- Science
- Scientific American
National Science Foundation Halts Funding Indefinitely
Staff members at the US National Science Foundation (NSF) were told on 30 April to 'stop awarding all funding actions until further notice,' according to an email seen by Nature. The policy prevents the NSF, one of the world's biggest supporters of basic research, from awarding new research grants and from supplying allotted funds for existing grants, such as those that receive yearly increments of money. The email does not provide a reason for the freeze and says that it will last 'until further notice'. Earlier this week, NSF leadership also introduced a new policy directing staff members to screen grant proposals for 'topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities'. Proposals judged not 'in alignment' must be returned to the applicants by NSF employees. The policy has not been made public but was described in documents seen by Nature. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. An NSF staff member says that although good science can still be funded, the policy has the potential to be 'Orwellian overreach'. Another staff member says, 'They are butchering the gold standard merit review process that was established at NSF over decades'. One program officer says they are resigning because of the policy. Nature spoke with five NSF staffers for this story, all on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media. An NSF spokesperson declined Nature 's request for comment. Continuing turmoil The changes are hitting an agency already in crisis. In the past two weeks, the NSF has terminated roughly 1,040 grants that would have awarded US$739 million to researchers and their institutions. The agency's director, Sethuraman Panchanathan, resigned last month. Uncertainty is also being felt by scientists outside the agency. Colin Carlson, an expert in disease emergence at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, leads an initiative to predict viruses that pose pandemic threats. The project, which involves roughly 50 researchers across multiple universities, is funded by a $US12.5 million NSF grant. The project's latest round of funding was approved, but Carlson worries about subsequent rounds, and the fate of other researchers. Unless it is lifted, the freeze 'is going to destroy people's labs,' Carlson says. Funding for the NSF, as for all other federal agencies, is set by the US Congress. To date, the agency has received only about one-quarter of the funding that Congress appropriated to it for the current fiscal year, which ends on 30 September. More cuts on the way It is not clear whether a funding shortfall is driving the latest grant freeze. But Matthew Lawrence, a specialist in administrative law at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, says that under a 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act, the NSF must give Congress special notice of the grant halt, which would otherwise be unlawful. Cuts to NSF spending this year could be a prelude to a dramatically reduced budget next year. Science previously reported that US President Donald Trump will request a $4 billion budget for the agency in fiscal year 2026, a 55% reduction from what Congress appropriated for 2025. Similarly, the proposed 2026 budget for the National Institutes of Health calls for a 44% cut to the agency's $47 billion budget in 2025, according to documents leaked to the media. During Trump's first term, Republicans in Congress rejected many of the president's requested cuts to science funding, but it is not clear that they will do so again. In the long term, severe reductions to science funding could damage the economy, according to new research. A report by economists at American University in Washington DC estimates that a 50% reduction in federal science funding would reduce the US gross domestic product by approximately 7.6%. 'This country's status as the global leader in science and innovation is seemingly hanging by a thread at this point,' one NSF staffer says. NSF staff expect hundreds more grants to be terminated Friday.
