What Huge Cuts To NSF Funding Mean For Science

FLORA LICHTMAN: This is Science Friday. I’m Flora Lichtman. One of the signature moves of the current presidential administration is widespread cuts to departments and programs that, in the government’s view, do not align with current administration priorities. This has been especially noticeable in areas like public health, global aid, and science.

Grants funded by the National Science Foundation this year are less than half of what they have been in previous years, its lowest funding level in decades. Here to tell us more is Katrina Miller, a science reporter for The New York Times. Welcome to Science Friday.

KATRINA MILLER: Hi. Happy to be here.

FLORA LICHTMAN: You’ve written a lot about these cuts to Science funding, especially at the NSF. Let’s start with the big-picture view.

KATRINA MILLER: Yeah. So the National Science Foundation is one of the largest funders of scientific research in the United States. And since the Trump administration took office, the NSF has undergone a flurry of changes in attempt to comply with its new policies and priorities.

And much of that change has amounted to very sharp cuts in funding at the agency. More than 1,600 active research grants have been cut short, so that’s about $1.4 billion of funding. And the NSF is now awarding new grants at its slowest pace this year in more than three decades.

FLORA LICHTMAN: This week, 16 States brought a lawsuit challenging these cuts. Tell us about it.

KATRINA MILLER: So on Wednesday, a group of attorney generals across the US sued the NSF for, one, terminating grants related to broadening participation of marginalized groups in STEM, but also, for attempting to implement a 15% cost cap on indirect research expenses. That covers things like keeping lab spaces clean, keeping them maintained, administrative work, pretty much any other cost that’s not directly related to the goal of the scientific project itself.

We reached out to the NSF about this most recent lawsuit for our coverage of it this week, but they declined to comment.

FLORA LICHTMAN: What’s the legal basis for the challenge?

KATRINA MILLER: So since, at least, the 1980s, Congress has directed the National Science Foundation to support activities that broaden the participation of women and minorities in STEM. That has been expanded significantly to include people with disabilities as well. And so the basic premise of the lawsuit is that the National Science Foundation, by defunding and deprioritizing activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, are going against mandated directives by Congress.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Initially, a lot of the administration’s cuts seemed aimed at things that the administration felt were connected to DEI efforts. Is that still the case?

KATRINA MILLER: So the NSF is made up of eight directorates, which oversee research in different fields. So that’s biosciences, geosciences, engineering, to name a few. And across the board, all of the directorates are experiencing grant cancellations as well as a decline in new grant funding, but to varying degrees. There’s a crowdsourced online database called GrantWatch that has been tracking canceled NSF grants for some weeks now, and the agency very recently published an official list of what has been terminated.

And if you look at that list at face value, the majority of grants being affected seem to have some relation to die. Overwhelmingly, the directorate that’s getting hit the hardest is STEM education, which represents nearly 75% of the total dollar amount of cuts. And experts who I’ve spoken with say that this focus is part of a broader attack on education, as a whole because of the way education research, particularly in STEM, aims to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in student learning.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And are we talking about not awarding money going forward or actually cutting off grants that are in progress now?

KATRINA MILLER: So these are active research grants that are getting cut. Some were just awarded and about to take off. Others were stopped mid-project or toward the end of the work, very abruptly with little time to wrap things up. And there’s also, in addition, a slowing of new awards being funded. The reports done by my colleagues, concluded that the NSF is awarding new grants at its slowest pace in 35 years.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Who is actually making the decisions about which grants get cut and which ones get greenlit and the slowing piece?

KATRINA MILLER: It’s hazy. Soon after the Trump administration took office, the NSF began an agency-wide review of active research awards that contain buzzwords that were commonly associated with DEI. So woman, institutional, equal opportunity, bias, and other words were on that list.

DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, did not visit the NSF until April. And shortly after NSF came out with a statement saying it was deprioritizing DEI efforts in favor of opportunities for all Americans everywhere, then the grant cancellations began, staff firings ensued, the NSF director resigned. So there have been a lot of changes that have occurred immediately after DOGE set up shop at the NSF, but to my knowledge, nothing has been confirmed by the agency, at least, that DOGE is the one who is driving those changes.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Meaning it would be NSF employees.

KATRINA MILLER: Yes.

FLORA LICHTMAN: What’s your take on the departure of the NSF director?

KATRINA MILLER: So I read his statement. He did not say much about the changes that have happened at the agency since the Trump administration took office. He did mention that science in the United States must not lose its competitive edge, and that’s the closest he came to addressing a lot of the criticism that he has faced for not speaking out or advocating for his staff that have been laid off or for the researchers who are impacted by the funding cuts at the agency.

FLORA LICHTMAN: In your colleague’s analysis, were there any areas of science that have gotten more funding since this administration has come into place?

KATRINA MILLER: Yes. There were a few research areas that saw an increased amount of new grants in 2025. Advanced cyberinfrastructure was one of them. They’ve been awarded double the funding by the NSF that typically receives this far into the year. So that includes support for things like AI and high-performance computing.

Also, funding for behavioral and cognitive sciences has increased, as well as ocean sciences and technology workforce development. NSF said in a statement that it would continue to focus on areas of science that the Trump administration, particularly named as a priority, so artificial intelligence, quantum, nuclear, et cetera, but that it remains committed to funding all types of scientific research.

FLORA LICHTMAN: How do these cuts end the slowdown in new grants? How does this fit in with the ongoing budget process that we’re reading about? And does this mean that more cuts are on the table?

KATRINA MILLER: I think scientists are anticipating more funding cuts of active research awards at the National Science Foundation. The Trump administration dropped its skinny budget early in May, and it proposed large cuts to many scientific agencies across the federal government. They want to slash the budget of the NSF, in particular, by 56%. But that’s just a proposal.

So it has to go through Congress. It will likely undergo changes. And in the meantime, scientists just have to wait and see.

FLORA LICHTMAN: What are the scientists that you’re talking to, telling you about the situation on the ground? How is this changing research right now?

KATRINA MILLER: People are really scared at the way the American system of science seems to be unraveling so quickly. I think that’s especially true for early career folks, who are, obviously, concerned about their ability to pursue an academic career in the fields they’ve chosen.

If there is no chance at getting funding in a particular field, it can become very difficult to earn tenure in said field. That means that you have more students thinking about making the pivot into industry. A lot of reports have also surfaced about the beginnings of brain drain, where American scientists are looking outside of the US to continue their careers. And also, immigrant scientists who have come here to work are thinking about leaving.

We’ve seen other countries, particularly in Europe, try to capitalize on this trend. And then scientists are also mobilizing. So they’re tracking these changes. They’re in the streets protesting, calling their representatives, doing more outreach with the public to get across the importance of science. Back in March, a coalition called Stand Up for Science organized a national protest. And recently, they’ve announced a summer fight for science ahead of Congress voting on the federal budget.

FLORA LICHTMAN: There was a Stand Up for Science, a version of this when Trump took office the first time, I believe. Does it seem different now?

KATRINA MILLER: I think the main difference is that during the first Trump administration, the March for Science represented a shift for many scientists. It was their first time stepping into political action. There was a lot of discourse about whether scientists should be doing things like activism in the streets or if their role was better served in the lab, in the office.

This time, I think that conversation is changed because so many more scientists are being directly affected by the policies and the priorities of the Trump administration. So it is something that many people who, maybe could have ignored the way that Trump was shifting the United States in his first administration can no longer because it’s directly affecting, now, their own careers.

FLORA LICHTMAN: It’s not abstract anymore.

KATRINA MILLER: Exactly.

FLORA LICHTMAN: While we have you, I know you report on space and physics. Are you working on any stories right now that make the case for why we should be funding science?

KATRINA MILLER: What is at the forefront of my mind right now is the Vera C. Rubin Observatory that is approaching its first look. It’s going to release its first images sometime in June. That observatory is going to take a motion picture of the night sky about every three days.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Is that a big deal?

KATRINA MILLER: It’s a huge deal. It’s a huge deal. I mean, it’s a plethora of data. It is going to help scientists answer questions about dark energy and dark matter and why the universe is structured the way it is, and why galaxies form the way they do.

And so scientists are really excited about that. I think that a lot of these scientific questions seem very far away from problems that are happening on the ground. But I think that the importance of basic research, research that does not have direct application to society or political interest, historically, has been shown to end up becoming very beneficial in ways that we may not have been able to predict.

FLORA LICHTMAN: It’s also, these are the most profound questions that we can tackle, that we can think about. They make our life better in that way, too.

KATRINA MILLER: Yeah. I think everyone, at some point, has asked some form of question of why we are here. And sometimes it’s really fascinating to just immerse yourself in the way that astronomers and people who study the night sky are answering that question.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Thank you. Katrina.

KATRINA MILLER: Thank you so much.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Katrina Miller, science reporter for The New York Times. She’s based in Chicago. After the break, a new blood test to diagnose Alzheimer’s. Just how big of a deal is it?

JASON KARLAWISH: This is big.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Don’t go away. And now, a bit of good news. The FDA has approved a blood test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. It’s the first of its kind, and it measures the levels of amyloid and tau proteins in a patient’s blood, two major biomarkers of the disease. The test is approved for patients over 55 who are experiencing cognitive impairments.

Until now, getting an official Alzheimer’s diagnosis was costly and out of reach for many patients. So here to tell us more about this diagnostic and what it means for patients is Dr. Jason Karlawish, professor of medicine, medical ethics, and health policy and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and co-director of the Penn Memory Center, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Jason, welcome back to Science Friday.

JASON KARLAWISH: Great to be here. Hi, Flora.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Will you put this in context for us? How big of a deal is this new blood test?

JASON KARLAWISH: This is big. It’s revolutionary, and I like that word. It’s a word, maybe is a little overused in science. Everything is a revolution. Just like every kid is an honor student. But this truly is revolutionary.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Why? Why is it revolutionary?

JASON KARLAWISH: Well, once upon a time, but not too long ago, a diagnosis of the cause of a person’s dementia was hedged with awful uncertainties. Probable Alzheimer’s. And the answer could only occur until you died. And then the pathologists would get all the brain tissue, slice it up and say, this is what I’m seeing.

So it’s kind of gruesome. And no wonder people avoided seeing me, perhaps, because if you can’t tell me, really, what’s wrong, what’s the point of seeing you? I disagreed with that then. I still do now. But these tests suddenly say, allow me within a matter of days after presentation at the Penn Memory Center, to tell a patient the cause of your cognitive impairments is Alzheimer’s disease or is not Alzheimer’s disease. That’s huge. I was not doing that a year ago.

FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s amazing. I mean, what is the blood test measuring exactly?

JASON KARLAWISH: Yeah. So the blood test measures a fragment of the tau protein that is broken off and is in the blood, and the tau protein is one of the components of what we call the tau tangles that are one of the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s. The test also measures a fragment of the beta amyloid protein, which is another one of the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s.

And we can measure it in blood and then made into a little ratio, which takes out some of the noise that occurred inherently in all these measures. You can set a cut point that gives a clinician, such as myself decent confidence that this patient’s brain contains levels of amyloid protein and tau protein that are consistent with the pathologic presentation of Alzheimer’s. It’s a test for pathology. It’s not a test for dementia.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Explain that distinction. It’s a test to say something has happened in your brain, but not the effects of what those changes are.

JASON KARLAWISH: Exactly. Exactly. And a very important point you made was, this is a test for people who have cognitive impairment that now needs an explanation. When many people think about Alzheimer’s, they think, oh, mean dementia. And when I think of Alzheimer’s, I think of, no, the pathology that can cause dementia. Just like Lewy body pathology causes Lewy body disease, et cetera.

And this test measures the pathologies that explain why a person has cognitive impairment. And so it’s not the test that you start with. When I see you in the clinic at the memory center, the test I would start with would be a detailed history and exam to determine whether there is cognitive impairment. And if there is, is Alzheimer’s in the differential. And if it is, I might order this test, of course, after we talk about it.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Could a test like this measure how far along someone is, like the progression of the disease?

JASON KARLAWISH: Yeah, great question. And that’s the next thing that we need to develop great tests for, and this test is a start in that space. The test that we also need to develop in the clinic is just what you described, which is, I get a sense of how severe the pathology is in your brain.

Now, my colleagues and I are beginning to look at ways to measure the tau burden in the brain, because tau burden, really, is the marker of how far along the disease is. Having said that, the way this test is being used and analyzed is the detection of the pathology, not how far along it is, except that it’s far enough along to cause cognitive impairment. In other words, disabilities in daily life because of troubles with memory, language, attention, et cetera.

FLORA LICHTMAN: If you can diagnose with more certainty, does that open any different treatment options?

JASON KARLAWISH: It does, it does. And I’m glad that we held off on jumping to treatment like diving to desert. And I’m glad we first ate our peas, because you need a diagnosis before treatment. And treatment is why people come to see me when they’re worried about Alzheimer’s, because I now have at least two treatments that target one of the pathologies in Alzheimer’s.

But I want to emphasize diagnosis alone is very valuable to explain what’s going on and what to expect in the future. Now, we’re at the heart of one of the very promising aspects of this diagnostic test, which is if you do have Alzheimer’s disease and you are at a stage of the disease in its clinical severity that is either mild cognitive impairment or mild stage dementia, you are now a candidate, potentially, for therapies that target amyloid and have been shown, approved by FDA, to slow down the pace of the disease. And so this test is an entry, not just to diagnosis, but also, to treatment.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Do you expect we’re going to see other tests for neurodegenerative diseases? Now, that we have this one, does it open up–

JASON KARLAWISH: Oh, yeah. This is shot heard around the world. I mean, we should anticipate a time when the mind is thoroughly measured in some sense. And that’s a bit of a rhetorical overstatement. But imagine a time when I can tell you whether there’s diseases in your brain that can cause damage to your neurons, that affects certain regions of your brain. And I can do other tests that tell you where in your brain the neurons are being damaged, not just at the macroscopic level of atrophy seen on an MRI, but the microscopic level.

And so I can really begin to explain what’s wrong and what will go wrong with your brain.

FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s a profound change.

JASON KARLAWISH: That is a very profound change. We have to anticipate that in the coming years, decades, we’re going to arrive at that for neurodegenerative of diseases.

FLORA LICHTMAN: I think that’s the perfect place to leave it. Thank you so much for joining us today.

JASON KARLAWISH: Well, you’re welcome, Flora. It was a lot of fun.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Dr. Jason Karlawish, professor of medicine, medical ethics, and health policy and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and co-director of the Penn Memory Center, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Before we go, do you have an AI friend or a social relationship with a chatbot? What do you talk about? Do you get something from them that you can’t get from a human? Call us and tell us about it, 877-4-SCIFRI. 877-4-SCIFRI.

And that is about all we have time for. Lots of folks helped make this show happen, including–

DEE PETERSCHMIDT: Dee Peterschmidt.

PRAISE AGOCHI: Praise Agochi.

KATHLEEN DAVIS: Kathleen Davis.

SANTIAGO FLOREZ: Santiago Florez.

FLORA LICHTMAN: I’m Flora Lichtman. Thanks for listening.

Copyright © 2025 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of Science Friday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/