Cuts to Federal research grants will end US science education as we know it
The Musk-Trump administration has put research funding on the chopping block. They are cutting staffing at key Federal agencies that make grants for science and medical research, they are cutting budgets at these agencies, and they are restricting the categories of allowable funding. These cuts will not only negatively impact scientific research in the United States. These cuts will also have a devastating impact on post-secondary science education in the US for decades to come. In addition, they are hampering scientific research at a point when other nations, including China, are heavily ramping up post-secondary science education.
I have previously explored the nexus of conflicting views among those currently attacking science research funding and the tech sector, and the ways those views shape perspective on science education here in the US. In sum:
Elon Musk says we should increase the number of H-1B visas so we can bring in lots of tech sector workers from outside the US. In this view, US science education would be unnecessary since we can simply hire people educated elsewhere. Since Elon Musk has hired a bunch of young “whiz kids”, not all of whom have graduated from college, it seems he may not even believe that a solid education is necessary for scientific or technological work.
Steve Bannon says, no, the Musk approach is technofeudalism, creating an apartheid state of indentured servitude in Silicon Valley because H-1B visa holders can be paid less than citizens (saving companies money, increasing profit). He says that, instead, American citizens should “have a shot at the brass ring”. Bannon does not address how citizens will play a key role in science and technology without a strong educational framework.
Ted Cruz says that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been spending too much money on “DEI” projects and “environmental justice” projects, contending that there are billions of dollars of projects that are really politically motivated and not about science.1 The Cruz list of problematic grants includes numerous projects designed to recruit and retain citizens in scientific fields. Cutting off efforts to recruit and retain people in science, from all populations within the US, will harm further science and technology progress and eventually cripple science education.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has already cut 10% of its staff, moving toward an expected 25-50% staff reduction. The Musk-Trump administration has indicated they will reduce the NSF budget to one-third its current amount2, along with the severe cut in indirect costs on NIH grants. Many have already addressed the impact these cuts will have on future scientific research and the derivative economic benefits that accrue from scientific breakthroughs.3 But we also must examine the potential severe long-term impact on the future of science education across the US. For this I will assume a situation in which funding is ended for the sorts of projects lambasted by Ted Cruz (DEI, environmental justice), and I further assume grant indirect costs are slashed across the Federal grant infrastructure (including NSF, NIH, ONR, DARPA)4. The impact on science education will happen in two ways, one direct, one indirect.
First, the direct impact on science education. Let’s consider the goals of some of the projects flagged as problematic by Ted Cruz (note: I give general information but not specific location details in order to protect the funded scholars, particularly as some grants are ongoing):
a project to improve retention and effectiveness of K-12 STEM teachers in high-need school districts in a rural poor area of the country
a project involving microbial research in Antarctica, bringing it back to K-12 students and undergraduates with a goal of exciting them about this type of scientific research.
funding for a rural STEM learning summit in order to break down isolation of teachers in rural areas, laying a foundation for ongoing gatherings and collaboration.
a grant to take 15 students to an annual AI research conference, in line with the national need for workforce development in computer science overall and in artificial intelligence in particular.
Killing off current and future funding for these types of projects will have an immediate impact on recruitment and retention of future scientists at the K-12 and post-secondary levels, as well as the ability of K-12 schools to continue to offer engaging, current, quality science education.
Second, let’s consider the indirect impact on science education. The “indirect cost” (IDC) on Federal science grants has been in the news since the announcement that the NIH indirect rate would be uniformly cut to 15%. How does IDC really work (with thanks to a grants officer who helped make this clear!). In general, an institution’s base rate, and what that rate is applied to, is negotiated with a government agency, usually the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Smaller liberal arts-focused colleges and universities are more likely to a) have a lower rate, and b) apply it only to salaries and wages
A slightly larger or more research intensive institution might apply IDC to salaries, wages, and fringe benefits.
The most research intensive institutions are likely to use “modified total direct costs” as their base. This means they apply the indirect rate to all salaries, wages, fringe benefits, equipment costs, tuition costs for supported graduate students, scholarships, etc. that are part of a grant budget.
Some real numbers can help explain. At my institution, Bard College, the indirect rate is 47.7%, charged on only salaries and wages (wages are money I pay to students who work on my projects). In one of my recent grants my total salary over three years for grant-related work will be $40,182, and Bard gets an additional $19,167. This additional money might be used to defray the cost of the college’s Internet connection, or provide funding for a scholarship student interested in trying a science major even though that was not their intention in high school. An institution like Harvard has an indirect rate that is closer to 70%. If I were at Harvard pulling $40,182 from a grant, the institution would get an additional $28,127 (note that in either case, the total grant request has to fall within the maximum limit established by the particular solicitation). This funding might be applied to tuition for a graduate student.
So what happens if the indirect rates are slashed? There are researchers who have written on this in very clear ways (see, for example, this piece for an excellent discussion of indirect costs, and this piece for a “day in the life of a scientist” perspective on what indirect pays for). The long and the short of it is that indirect costs help institutions build and maintain the infrastructure necessary to carry out scientific research and instruction. Indirect money helps pay for labs, computers, chemicals, support staff, keeping the lights on and the Internet connection. Indirect money helps pay the tuition for graduate students, pays a salary to graduate students for their research and teaching activities, and provides summer stipends for undergraduate researchers who might then decide to do graduate study. When a researcher gets a grant and brings in indirect money, that helps sustain an enterprise that allows the next generation to learn how to do science and scientific research. In the face of cuts and restrictions that have already taken place, a number of schools (University of Pittsburgh, for example) have already paused PhD admissions for Fall 2025.5
In the face of a distinct shortage of scientists and technologists, in the face of great need for continued basic scientific research, science in the US faces a double whammy. We are losing funds for programs focused on recruiting and retaining students from numerous populations across the country, losing funds for programs focused on shoring up a strong population of science teachers at the K-12 level in various parts of the country, and we’re being told that the funding still available will come with a greatly reduced indirect rate. The cut in indirect rate and overall reduction in grants available will hurt a majority of post-secondary science facilities. This will ultimately severely limit all science education within the US throughout K-12, post-secondary, and graduate levels.
Am I being unnecessarily alarmist? You might think, well, it’s not so horrible if we don’t have as many students, including graduate students, in the sciences. But consider that a vast reduction in the number of graduate students in the sciences means a similar reduction in science PhDs. Given that a relatively low percentage of science PhDs go into academic positions, this will lead to a significant reduction in science faculty. One can easily imagine that eventually we will not have enough science faculty to staff programs at colleges and universities.
How many PhD scientists do we need? I’m at a small institution of approximately 2000 students with 38 faculty members covering Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Math, and Computer Science. By contrast, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences has about 90 faculty in their science division. There are approximately 4000 degree granting post-secondary institutions in the US. A simple computation indicates that it takes between 152,000 and 360,000 PhD scientists to adequately staff these institutions. In 2023 there were 12987 new PhDs earned by US citizens in Biological Sciences, Computer & Information Sciences, Math/Statistics, and Physical Sciences.6 Take away the indirect money, take away the programs designed to recruit students into the sciences, and you can say goodbye to PhD production, and, ultimately, say goodbye to college and university science programs. If you don't have post-secondary science instruction, then your future K-12 teachers are not going to learn enough science to do a credible job teaching it at the K-12 level. And what will become of science research? In the full gloom and doom scenario, we will return to the period of the early 1900s7, except instead of industry funding science, individual billionaires will fund scientific research and education, they will control the resulting intellectual property, and they will reap the financial benefits of any resulting products.
see The NSF’s Higher Ed Research ‘Hit List’ for a more detailed discussion of this.
See, for example, Science funding agency threatened with mass layoffs
National Institutes of Health, Office of Naval Research, Defense Advanced Research and Projects Administration
As of Feb 26, Stanford University has announced a hiring freeze for staff positions, and Case Western Reserve has announced an indefinite freeze on staff hiring, temporary employee hours, discretionary spending, and travel not related to donor solicitations.
Another 7583 PhDs were earned at US institutions by non-citizens.