Podcast Summary: Short Wave – "Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?"

Introduction

In the March 11, 2025 episode of NPR’s Short Wave, hosts Emily Kwong and Regina Barber delve into the profound impact of the Trump administration on the United States' scientific community. Titled "Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?", the episode examines the administration's actions within the first 50 days in office and their cascading effects on key federal science agencies: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Through interviews with experts Rob Stein, Ping Huang, and Jonathan Lambert, the episode paints a comprehensive picture of the challenges faced by the scientific community under the new administration.

Trump Administration's Initial Actions on Science

Emily Kwong opens the episode by outlining President Donald Trump’s immediate directives affecting scientific governance:

• Communication Suspension: Just days into his presidency, Trump suspended public communications across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the overseeing body for NIH, CDC, and FDA.

• Executive Orders on DEI: The administration issued orders to terminate all work related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and gender inclusivity.

• Ripple Effects: These policies led to significant changes within scientific institutions. For instance, the CDC removed thousands of pages from its website, the NSF temporarily halted grant-making processes, and the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) initiated a massive reduction of the federal workforce, resulting in thousands of layoffs.

Emily Kwong notes at [00:27]: “Trump then issued executive orders to terminate all work related to DEI, environmental justice and gender inclusivity.”

Stand Up for Science Movement

In response to these sweeping changes, the Stand Up for Science movement emerged as a grassroots effort to defend the integrity of scientific research and federal support. Participants like Marguerite Pacheco, a PhD student in Biomedical Engineering, voiced concerns over the administration's policies.

Marguerite Pacheco shares at [02:06]: “Everyone who would have ever interfaced with us has just like disappeared. So it's been like haunting, creepy and horrifying. I'm going to be honest.”

She emphasizes the critical role of basic research in everyday life, questioning the administration’s rationale behind cutting what she refers to as “administrative bloat.”

Impact on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Jonathan Lambert provides an in-depth analysis of the NIH's struggles under the Trump administration:

• Communications Blackout: Shortly after the inauguration, the NIH faced a communications freeze, causing fear and confusion among researchers and staff. Queries from reporters were ignored, and all travel was abruptly canceled.

• Indirect Cost Cap: On February 7th, the NIH announced a contentious cap on indirect costs at 15%, which are essential for covering overhead expenses like utilities and maintenance. This cap threatened to cripple medical research funded by the NIH’s substantial $48 billion budget.

  Emily Kwong asks at [05:05]: “So the NIH was one of the federal health agencies that was hit by this communications blackout.”

  Jonathan Lambert responds at [05:31]: “Researchers said the cap would essentially cripple medical research.”

• Workforce Reductions: Approximately 1,200 of the NIH’s 18,000 employees were laid off, targeting both junior and senior scientists. Additionally, offers of $25,000 were made to employees considering leaving, although these did not extend to NIH workers specifically.

• Leadership Changes: The administration nominated Dr. J. Bhattacharya, a health economist and critic of NIH policies, as the new head of the NIH. During his confirmation hearing, Bhattacharya pledged to foster an environment open to dissenting views.

  Jonathan Lambert states at [08:14]: “Bhattacharya is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring.”

Challenges Facing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Rob Stein outlines the tumultuous changes at the CDC:

• Website and Data Deletions: In late January, administrative orders led to the removal of sensitive information related to transgender and pregnant individuals, as well as critical public health tools for tracking diseases like HIV and STIs. A federal judge later mandated the restoration of these resources.

• Workforce Layoffs: Around 750 CDC employees were laid off around Valentine’s Day. Some of these terminations have been reversed, but uncertainty remains as the administration continues its efforts to downsize.

• Active Disease Responses: Despite internal chaos, the CDC continues to manage more than half a dozen active outbreak responses, including bird flu, mpox, viral hemorrhagic fever, dengue, and polio.

  Rob Stein explains at [09:11]: “Now some of that has gone back up. And in February, a federal judge actually ordered them to put the websites back up.”

• Leadership Transition: The upcoming confirmation hearing for Dr. Dave Weldon, Trump’s nominee for CDC director, signifies potential further shifts in agency leadership.

National Science Foundation (NSF) under Scrutiny

Neil Lane discusses the NSF’s experience amid the administration's policies:

• Grant Review and Funding Freezes: Similar to NIH and CDC, the NSF faced a temporary halt in grant reviews and disbursal of funds. The agency initiated a comprehensive review of its grants to align with the administration’s DEI-focused executive orders.

• Impact on Researchers: The uncertainty led to financial strains for researchers dependent on NSF funding, with some unable to cover living expenses or continue their projects.

  Neil Lane remarks at [13:18]: “Now, some people argue that NSF shouldn't be considering diversity and funding its science, but only the science.”

• Historical Context: According to Lane, the NSF’s current approach is unprecedented, as previous administrations have not dictated specific grant priorities based on social factors.

  Neil Lane states at [14:24]: “With the idea of broadening the sort of STEM workforce.”

• Ongoing Uncertainty: While some grant processes have resumed, the DEI review remains, and the administration continues to propose significant budget cuts, threatening the NSF’s capacity to fund future research.

Future Implications for U.S. Science

The episode culminates with the panelists reflecting on the long-term consequences of the administration's policies:

• Erosion of Trust and Morale: The disruption has fostered mistrust among scientists regarding the integrity of federal data and funding. Staff morale within agencies like the CDC remains low, with fears of job insecurity pervasive.

  Rob Stein shares at [16:15]: “People we've spoken with are worried that these cost-cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to improve people's health in the long run.”

• Decline in Scientific Pursuit: Researchers express concerns that potential and current scientists may be dissuaded from pursuing careers in STEM fields due to the unstable funding landscape and administrative uncertainty.

  Neil Lane comments at [16:32]: “Prospective scientists are just going to look at the state of science now and decide they want to do something different, like not go into science at all.”

• Global Standing at Risk: With the U.S. potentially reducing its investment and leadership in scientific research, there is apprehension about the country's ability to maintain its position as a global scientific leader.

  Jonathan Lambert emphasizes at [16:56]: “Science is an international enterprise and the US is a leader internationally when it comes to scientific research. So the real concern is where is this going to go and is this us going to be giving up that position in the world?”

Conclusion

The episode of Short Wave provides a sobering exploration of the Trump administration’s impact on U.S. science, highlighting immediate disruptions and long-term threats to research integrity, funding stability, and the nation’s scientific workforce. Through expert insights and firsthand accounts, it underscores the fragile nature of scientific progress under political upheaval and the critical need for robust support to sustain scientific endeavors.

Notable Quotes

• Marguerite Pacheco at [02:28]: “We know how to fix that broken arm because of basic research, science, because of science that happens at universities.”

• Jonathan Lambert at [08:14]: “Bhattacharya is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring.”

• Rob Stein at [16:15]: “People we've spoken with are worried that these cost-cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to improve people's health in the long run.”

Attributions

• Hosts and Experts:

  • Emily Kwong – Host
  • Rob Stein – Covering NIH
  • Ping Huang – Covering CDC
  • Jonathan Lambert – Covering NSF
  • Neil Lane – Former NSF Director

• Guests:

  • Marguerite Pacheco – PhD Student in Biomedical Engineering

This detailed summary captures the essence of the episode, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the critical issues discussed regarding the Trump administration's influence on science in the United States.