Latest news with #scienceFunding
CBC
18-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Western University launches program to capitalize on shrinking U.S. research funding
Western University is looking to capitalize on massive shifts in the academic landscape of the United States with a new initiative designed to turn a difficult situation into a brain gain for both the school, and the country. The Doctoral Excellence Award established this month offers up to $160,000, over the course of four years, to people interested in enrolling in a research-based doctoral program at Western. The catch? To qualify the university says, applicants have to be studying at, have received an offer from, or have had an offer rescinded by a doctoral program at an American university. "I think it's great that Western is getting ahead of this, because the situation in the states with funding for science is evolving very quickly in a direction that's not very great for science across the board," said Anthony Cruz, a PhD candidate in Western's Department of Psychology, and the vice president academic for the Western Society of Graduate Students. The creation of the grants comes amid a significant disruption in the United States's university system, driven by Trump administration cuts to funding for science research. Those cuts have resulted in fewer graduate students being admitted to U.S. universities, and many existing offers being rescinded. Cruz , who is American himself, said he's thankful to be working toward his PhD in Canada, especially given stories he's heard from his colleagues across the border. One, he said, was expecting to have grant funding through to next year, before funding was cut prematurely. "People are very worried," Cruz said. The Doctoral Excellence Award doesn't just apply to students from the United States. Eligibility requirements outlined on Western's website also say people of any nationality can apply, so long as their prior involvement was with a U.S. school that's ranked in the top 100 on either the QS Top Universities list or the Times Higher Education list. Western promises applicants it will streamline the timeline from application submission to review and decision, and offer assistance in connecting candidates with thesis supervisors. In terms of funding, the university offers $40,000 per year, for up to four years of study in research-based doctoral programs. In its pitch to potential applicants, Western paints London and itself as a "welcoming, English-speaking environment similar to the United States." It also implores applicants to "join a university where your research is respected, your voice is heard, and your potential is fully realized." It's an approach that Cruz calls impressive, especially in terms of the speed with which Western has responded to the unfolding situation south of the border. He said he believes Western is "ahead of the curve" in its response. "The states have been this hub for research for a really long time, and there's a lot of talent there. There's this moment where, for a lot of the talent that wants to get this doctoral training, those opportunities are being taken away. Western is providing that opportunity." A spokesperson from Western was not available for an interview.
Fast Company
07-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
AI could be science's strongest ally
Across the U.S. and parts of Europe, science funding is in crisis. In the U.S., a planned $18 billion worth of cuts to federal research have already halted trials, triggered mass layoffs, and shut down entire programs. Europe isn't immune either, with Horizon, Europe's flagship funding program for research and innovation, also facing rollbacks. These cuts are stretching researchers thin and slowing down innovation when we need it most. Breakthroughs in cancer, rare diseases, and drug development require time, space, and the freedom to explore. Instead, scientists are burning out and many are even walking away, with a recent Nature survey showing that 75% of U.S.-based researchers are considering relocation. With China ramping up investment in AI, the U.S. and Europe risk falling behind just as science enters its most exciting era. Agentic AI could ease the burden Scientific research is slow and expensive, not because of a lack of ideas, but because the tools haven't kept up. Knowledge is buried in siloed papers, scattered datasets, and disconnected systems, and pulling it all together takes time, money, and a lot of manual effort, slowing down even the most promising discoveries. This is where AI comes in as a true lab partner. Unlike the AI systems most of us are familiar with, agentic AI can plan and carry out tasks, all from a single prompt. Scientists can access a suite of agents that will handle the repetitive work that eats up their time, like writing reports, reviewing literature, or designing and running early-stage experiments in the lab. Tech companies and academic researchers are already starting to develop agentic AI to help achieve this. Owkin's K Navigator, Google's AI co-scientist, and Stanford's Biomni reflect a growing shift towards the adoption of agentic co-pilots that let scientists engage with their data as naturally as they would with a colleague. K Navigator is already showing that it can boost productivity by up to 20 times, giving researchers the freedom to focus on making breakthroughs. K Navigator exclusively accesses and analyses spatial multiomic data from MOSAIC Window, a subset of the largest spatial omics dataset in oncology. This allows researchers to better understand how different cells work together in the tumor micro-environment and advance vital cancer research. Agentic AI can help researchers shape hypotheses, work with complex data, and uncover insights, without needing a data science team to guide every step. This kind of acceleration will not only help researchers meet deadlines, but also open up scientific questions that might otherwise go unexplored. We hear this need from researchers every day. Many feel compelled to maintain the same high standards and deliver more data, more trials, and more publications, with fewer resources. In cancer centers and university labs alike, time is the scarcest resource. Agentic AI, embedded into real workflows, can effectively remove some of the friction that slows science down. More time on what matters AI agents won't replace critical thinking or peer review. But with the right safeguards and design (e.g. accurate source referencing and intuitive data visualization), they can help scientists spend less time on admin and more time on what really matters to advance treatments and diagnostics for patients. Because if we can't increase budgets, we need to increase impact. That means giving scientists the tools to do more with less, without burning them out or holding them back. Now is the moment to get this right, otherwise, the cost of underfunding science won't just be slower progress. It'll be lost cures, missed breakthroughs, and a generation of researchers who walk away.
Forbes
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Judge Rules NIH Grant Cuts Illegal
On Monday, U.S. District Judge William G. Young declared the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $1 billion in NIH research grants 'void and illegal' and accused the government of racial discrimination. The grants targeted included studies on vaccine hesitancy, maternal health in minority communities, and gender identity. The ruling temporarily restores funding for a coalition of researchers and Democratic-led states who sued to block the cuts. Judge Young's language was unusually direct. According to the New York Times, Judge Young said from the bench that he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this,' and later asked, 'Have we no shame?' The case marks a key moment in what academics and journalists have referred to as a broader war on science by the Trump administration — an effort to reshape the role of public science under political pressure and for ideological reasons. The decision comes amid warranted scrutiny of how federal agencies set research priorities. The direction of science has always reflected the influence of its patrons — from the Medici court's support of Galileo to the Manhattan Project's harnessing of physics for wartime goals. Since the advent of 'big science,' governments have become the principal sponsors, shaping inquiry through formal mechanisms including peer review, targeted programs, and oversight by professional staff. These procedures have not only preserved the integrity of the scientific enterprise but also enabled science to generate broad societal returns from public health and technological innovation to economic productivity yielding dividends that greatly exceed the costs of research. The Trump administration's abrupt termination of peer-reviewed grants represents a sharp break from these norms. While not necessarily unlawful on its face, this departure has disrupted the institutional systems that convert public funding into innovation — and raised fears of a mounting brain drain from the United States. The administration justified its actions by appealing to a vague critique of science as 'ideologically driven.' In court, Department of Justice lawyer Thomas Ports explained that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya had determined some areas, such as gender identity, were 'not scientifically valuable.' Yet the selective nature of the cuts — and the absence of procedural transparency — led Judge Young to conclude that the motive was discriminatory rather than scientific. In the absence of official disclosure, the scope of the NIH grant cancellations was reconstructed by Grant Watch, a grassroots initiative led by academic scientists. That the federal judiciary had to rely on this volunteer effort for evidence highlights the fragility of scientific governance when institutional transparency fails. What is most striking is that the government itself was unable to produce a clear and accurate record of which grants had been terminated. This gap is not merely bureaucratic — it signals a breakdown in accountability at the heart of the research funding process. The long-term consequences of the ruling remain uncertain. But it points to a deeper issue: the authority of science depends not only on the knowledge it produces, but on the credibility of the institutions that produce it. That credibility goes both ways. The erosion of public trust in elite institutions does not excuse the government's ideological manipulation of the scientific process. Peer review, transparency, and procedural integrity are not bureaucratic niceties; they are what separate scientific inquiry from political opinion or ideological assertion. When those norms are ignored, the line between science and politics disappears — not because science is ever apolitical, but because its function in a democratic society depends on institutions that are seen as fair, consistent, and accountable.
RNZ News
23-05-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
The Panel with Denise L'Estrange-Corbet and Chris Wikaira (Part 1)
business life and society about 1 hour ago Tonight on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Denise L'Estrange-Corbet and Chris Wikaira. They discuss cuts to science and tech funding in Budget 2025, speed sign confusion around schools in Auckland, and an iconic NZ fashion label shutting down their retail store.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UNM post-docs forewarn threats to research at Stand Up for Science event
Graduate student Alex Connolly signs a letter to U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) as part of the New Mexico Stand Up for Science outreach on the last day of spring semester classes. (Danielle Prokop / Source NM) On the last day of classes for the spring semester, organizers for the New Mexico Stand Up for Science tabled at the University of New Mexico, asking more students to join efforts to protest White House efforts to dismantle funding mechanisms for science research. 'The intent really is to make sure that people don't lose steam throughout the summer,' said Nina Christie, a post-doctoral researcher studying substance use. The group is part of a national movement seeking an expansion of research science funding and reinstating research cuts under anti-diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. UNM could face $20 million in lost funding under NIH rule The cuts, led by Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, have impacted billions of dollars in research — including a UNM neuroscience researcher studying impacts of repeated traumatic brain injuries, who spoke at an earlier protest at the New Mexico Legislature. About two dozen students stopped by over the course of 45 minutes. Some UNM employees also visited, including undergraduate advisors Madison Castiellano-Donovan and Dylan Velez. Velez told Source NM some of the psychology students whom they advise are expressing uncertainty in finding future jobs, wanting to graduate early or 'considering switching majors altogether' due to the cuts to higher education. Matison McCool, a post-doctoral researcher in substance abuse research, said lost funding will close doors for upcoming students. 'Without general training grants in place, without that infrastructure, there simply won't be pathways to get into science anymore, for people who want to do that,' he said. McCool said he also hoped the effort to organize will push the university to further protect funding. 'I want to hear concrete steps the administration is going to take and plan on taking to help continue funding researchers who lost their grants, and finding the resources for funding science,' he said. McCool said the recent 2026 Budget Request from the White House proposes Congress halve the National Science Foundation by more than $4.7 billion, and cut the National Institutes of Health budget by more than $17 billion dollars. 'That will devastate cancer trial research, substance trial use research — that is a fact,' he said. 'We cannot fund these studies that are solving these problems, people will die if these studies don't exist.' His own five-year research grant hasn't been impacted yet, but he's concerned that research will only get more limited, and he worries the grant could be rescinded at any time. 'The hardest part is looking at these White House proposed budgets and thinking 'I don't have a job in five years,'' he said. 'This may be the only science I ever get to do.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
