Summary of "The War Keeps Raging Against Science" – Science Vs
Release Date: May 22, 2025
Host: Wendy Zuckerman | Produced by Spotify Studios

Introduction

In the May 22, 2025 episode of Science Vs titled "The War Keeps Raging Against Science," host Wendy Zuckerman delves into the escalating challenges facing scientific research in the United States. The episode examines recent controversies, funding cuts, and regulatory changes that threaten the integrity and progress of scientific endeavors. Featuring insights from Rose Rimler, reporter Max Kozlov, virologist Seema Lakdawala, and economist Andrew Fieldhouse, the discussion unravels the complex interplay between science and politics in the current US landscape.

Milkshake Study and NIH Controversy

The episode opens with a discussion initiated by Rose Rimler about a controversial study conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study aimed to investigate whether ultra-processed milkshakes could trigger dopamine responses in the brain akin to addictive drugs.

• Study Details:
  "Researchers at the NIH gave people ultra-processed milkshakes—vanilla shakes loaded with fat, sugar, emulsifiers, and artificial flavorings—and scanned their brains using PET scanners," explains Rose Rimler (00:33).

• Findings:
  Contrary to popular belief, the study found that consuming these milkshakes did not cause a significant rush of dopamine similar to that produced by addictive drugs like cocaine.
  "Drinking the milkshake did not lead to a big rush of dopamine," Rimler notes (01:34), suggesting that ultra-processed foods may not be as addictive as previously thought.

• NIH's Response and Suppression Allegations:
  The controversy deepens as Rimler reveals that when a New York Times reporter sought to interview the study's lead scientist, Kevin Hall, the NIH reportedly denied his request and suppressed a planned press release.
  "Kevin... felt his work was being censored to fit, quote, preconceived narratives of my agency's leadership about ultra processed food addiction," Rimler states (05:19). This suppression is perceived as an attempt to downplay findings that contradict the administration's stance on ultra-processed foods.

Cuts to Science Funding

Max Kozlov, a reporter for Nature, provides a comprehensive overview of the significant cuts to scientific grants and projects under the Trump administration.

• Scale of Funding Cuts:
  "Grants at the National Institutes of Health, the world's largest funder of biomedical research, have seen the termination of 1,500 projects, amounting to over $7 billion in research funding," Kozlov reports (11:45). This unprecedented reduction targets various research areas deemed misaligned with current governmental priorities.

• Affected Research Areas:
  The administration's cuts span diverse fields, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender ideology studies, COVID-19 research, vaccine hesitancy research, and climate change studies.
  "We're going to stop funding projects that investigate why the climate is changing or enhance climate change literacy," Kozlov explains (13:25).

• Climate Change Research:
  NOAA projects related to weather forecasting and the economic tracking of climate disasters have been retired. Researchers face administrative pressure to remove the term "climate change" from their studies, reframing their work to focus solely on extreme weather events without attributing them to climate phenomena.

Impact on Vaccine Hesitancy and Transgender Research

The episode highlights specific instances where critical research has been affected:

• Vaccine Hesitancy Research:
  Despite a rising measles outbreak, studies aimed at understanding and improving vaccine uptake have been deprioritized.
  "It's like responding to a non-existent pandemic," Kozlov remarks (23:59).

• Transgender Health Research:
  The administration has drastically cut funding for LGBTQ research, labeling studies based on gender identity as "unscientific" with "little return on investment." However, a singular study on regret after transitioning was approved, raising eyebrows among researchers.
  "After terminating nearly a hundred grants that involve transgender people, all of a sudden they're funding one study on regret after transitioning," Kozlov observes (15:19). This selective funding exemplifies the administration's inconsistent approach to LGBTQ research.

Potential Consequences of International Aid Cuts

Beyond domestic research, the episode touches on the ramifications of reducing international aid, particularly in global health.

• Global Impact:
  Researchers estimate that cuts to programs like USAID could result in approximately 25 million additional deaths over the next 15 years due to increased cases of HIV, tuberculosis, and complications from unplanned pregnancies.
  "There are human lives on the line here. It's a tragedy," Kozlov emphasizes (18:08).

• International Trends:
  The US isn't alone; other countries such as the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are also considering reductions in their global health contributions, signaling a broader retrenchment in international scientific collaboration.

Executive Orders Affecting Gain-of-Function Research

A pivotal segment of the episode examines a new executive order targeting gain-of-function (GoF) research, which involves manipulating viruses or bacteria to study their potential risks.

• Details of the Executive Order:
  The Trump administration has instituted a 120-day pause on federally funded GoF research, labeling it "dangerous" and citing lab leak theories as the origin of COVID-19.
  "Federally funded research doing dangerous gain of function research has to stop for 120 days," Zuckerman explains (26:11).

• Scientific Concerns:
  Virologist Seema Lakdawala voices apprehension over the order's vague definitions, fearing that essential research into antibiotic resistance, superbugs, and even cancer therapies could be unjustly hindered.
  "What are we defining as dangerous gain of function research? Does that mean studying antibiotic resistance...," Lakdawala questions (27:59).

• Existing Regulations vs. New Order:
  Despite already stringent regulations and oversight, scientists find the executive order redundant and potentially obstructive.
  "This is about, like, what are we defining as dangerous gain of function research?" Lakdawala adds (28:19).

Economic Analysis of Science Funding

Economist Andrew Fieldhouse provides a compelling argument for the economic benefits of governmental investment in scientific research.

• Return on Investment:
  Fieldhouse cites studies indicating that for every dollar the US government spends on science and research, the economy gains approximately $1.70 in return.
  "For every dollar that the government spends on science, years down the line, the economy gets around $1.70," he states (33:44).

• Case Studies:
  Historical examples like the Apollo program and the development of mRNA vaccine technology illustrate how foundational research can lead to significant economic and societal advancements.

• Critique of Private Sector Replacement:
  Contrary to the administration's belief that private sector investments can replace public funding, Fieldhouse argues that the private sector is unlikely to match the scale and exploratory nature of government-funded research.
  "It's highly unlikely [the private sector] would invest an equivalent amount in basic research," he asserts (37:12).

• Economic Consequences of Cuts:
  Fieldhouse warns that substantial reductions in funding could lead to decreased GDP and lower wages for Americans.
  "If what's being proposed comes to pass, that's a really big hit," he warns (38:09).

Current Sentiments and Brain Drain

The episode underscores the psychological and professional toll on the scientific community due to funding uncertainties.

• Emigration Considerations:
  A poll conducted by Nature revealed that 75% of scientists are contemplating leaving the US in response to the current climate of funding cuts and administrative interference.
  "75% said they were considering leaving the country," Kozlov reports (38:47).

• Personal Testimonies:
  Virologist Seema Lakdawala expresses frustration over the politicization of science, lamenting the potential loss of the US's standing as a scientific superpower.
  "We are really good at doing science in the US... It feels like we may lose that," she shares (40:31).

Conclusion

"The War Keeps Raging Against Science" paints a concerning picture of the current state of scientific research in the United States. With significant funding cuts, regulatory uncertainties, and administrative suppression of specific research findings, the integrity and progress of science are under threat. The episode eloquently argues that sustained investment in science is not only vital for economic growth but also essential for addressing global health challenges and maintaining the country's leadership in scientific innovation. As scientists grapple with these adversities, the future of American science—and its broader societal impacts—hangs in the balance.

Notable Quotes

• Rose Rimler (00:33):
  "Researchers at the NIH... gave people ultra processed milkshakes... and scanned their brains using PET scanners."

• Wendy Zuckerman (05:19):
  "He felt his work was being censored to fit, quote, preconceived narratives of my agency's leadership about ultra processed food addiction."

• Max Kozlov (11:45):
  "Grants at the NIH... have seen the termination of 1,500 projects, amounting to over $7 billion in research funding."

• Andrew Fieldhouse (33:44):
  "For every dollar that the government spends on science, years down the line, the economy gets around $1.70."

• Seema Lakdawala (27:59):
  "What are we defining as dangerous gain of function research? Does that mean studying antibiotic resistance...?"

• Max Kozlov (38:47):
  "75% said they were considering leaving the country."

Key Takeaways

• Suppression of Scientific Findings: Recent efforts to downplay studies that contradict administrative narratives undermine scientific integrity.

• Substantial Funding Cuts: The termination of billions in research funding threatens advancements in critical areas like public health, climate change, and LGBTQ studies.

• Economic Implications: Government investment in science yields significant economic returns, and cuts could adversely affect the national economy.

• Brain Drain Risks: The hostile funding environment is driving a significant portion of the scientific community to consider leaving the US, potentially leading to a loss of expertise and innovation.

• Regulatory Uncertainty: Vague executive orders on gain-of-function research create confusion and hinder essential scientific work.

This summary captures the essence of the "The War Keeps Raging Against Science" episode of Science Vs, providing a comprehensive overview for listeners and non-listeners alike.