Short Wave – "Science In 2025 Took A Hit. What Does It Mean?"

Date: December 31, 2025
Hosts: Emily Kwong & Regina Barber
Guests: Rob Stein (NPR Health & Science Correspondent), Katie Riddle (NPR Science Correspondent)

Episode Overview

This episode reviews how science and scientific institutions in the United States suffered major setbacks in 2025, particularly due to disruptions in federal funding under the Trump administration. Hosts Emily Kwong and Regina Barber invite NPR correspondents Rob Stein and Katie Riddle to discuss the impact of these changes across NIH, NSF, NASA, and more. The conversation explores the historical context, the damage done to scientific infrastructure and morale, and uncertainty facing the next generation of scientists.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. A Brief History: Science and Government in America

• [01:50–03:14]
  • Science–government partnership fundamentally changed during WWII. The U.S. invested heavily in R&D, fueling major breakthroughs like penicillin and nuclear weapons.
  • Patrick McCrae, historian, credits Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report for setting U.S. science on a path supporting “prosperity, health, economy, and national security.”
  • Post-1945, the U.S. became the globe’s largest investor in R&D.

2. 2025: Science as a “Loser” in National Priorities

• [03:14–03:58]
  • Billions in cuts and thousands of research layoffs.
  • Scientists fear irreparable harm to the U.S. scientific “experiment.”
  • Standout quote:
    • “It’s very tragic and very distressing ... we’re just shooting ourselves in the foot.”
      — Bruce Alberts, UCSF & former National Academy of Sciences president [03:42]

3. How Federal Agencies Were Hit

• National Institutes of Health (NIH)

  • [05:35–07:20]
    • NIH staff slashed by thousands.
    • Billions in grants lost — from vaccines to cancer, many projects terminated, especially those mentioning "diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)".
    • Staff morale extremely low.
    • Quote:
      • “We call it drone attacks coming from above... absolutely soul crushing. So that’s why I eventually made the decision to leave.”
        — Sylvia Jo, National Cancer Institute, on leaving after 18 years [06:53]
    • Dr. Francis Collins (former NIH director) laments the approach:
      • “Move fast and break things without a whole lot of interest in what consequences might be… I just find it heartbreaking.” [07:38]

• Other Agencies: NSF, NOAA, NASA, VA

  • [08:01–08:42]
    • Massive disruption at nearly every scientific federal agency.
    • NSF canceled over 1,500 grants (mostly DEI-related), representing over $1B lost funding.

4. Impacts on the Next Generation & “The Science Pipeline”

• [08:42–09:36]
  • Scientists fear lasting damage to recruitment and retention of young scientists.
  • “Space exploration inspires… motivates people to do their math homework… move into technical areas.” — Fran Bagenal, Astrophysicist, NASA Juno Mission [09:14]

5. The Administration’s Position

• [09:36–11:20]
  • Administration officials, including NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, claim agencies needed “shaking up,” that changes aim to fund “more innovative” and less risk-averse research.
  • “Some changes have happened at the NIH which I think were long overdue... we fund more innovative science, be less risk-averse... The research ideas... have not translated over to better health for Americans.” — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya [10:14]
  • Bhattacharya insists there is no overt political meddling:
    • “Secretary Kennedy has not asked me to put my thumb on the scales of any scientific project... I have not seen that.” [11:03]
  • Asserts science in America remains world-leading:
    • “There’s still no better place on Earth to do biomedical science… by far the very best place on Earth to do science.” [11:20]

6. Voices of Young Scientists: Will They Leave?

• [11:30–13:17]
  • Case study: Brandon Coventry, electrical engineer/neuroscientist, recipient of NIH funding, now considering leaving the U.S.
  • “We’ve lost that sort of pipeline and certainty of the pipeline... This is the first time where that's just been out of whack.” — Brandon Coventry [12:38]
  • Considering moving:
    • “If I move, that’s permanent... I think for many of us, this is a calling to make the world a better place, and we would love to do that in our homes, but we’re gonna go to places where we can do that.” [13:00]

7. Bigger Picture: Is the U.S. Scientific Legacy Broken?

• [13:25–13:52]
  • Loss of trust in the “grand bargain” that made America a science superpower.
  • 2026 could bring deeper cuts and more chaos.
  • “The bigger question is whether the trust in this grand bargain that made America the greatest scientific powerhouse has been fractured beyond repair.” — Rob Stein [13:32]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Bruce Alberts:
  “It’s just, you know, shooting ourselves in the foot.” [03:42]
• Sylvia Jo:
  “Attack from above… absolutely soul crushing. So that’s why I eventually made the decision to leave.” [06:53]
• Dr. Francis Collins:
  “Move fast and break things without a whole lot of interest in what consequences might be... heartbreaking.” [07:38]
• Fran Bagenal:
  “Space exploration inspires and motivates people to do their math homework and… move into technical areas.” [09:14]
• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:
  “Some changes have happened at the NIH which I think were long overdue... fund more innovative science… the future is bright.” [10:14, 11:20]
• Brandon Coventry (young scientist):
  “We’ve lost that sort of pipeline… for many of us, this is a calling… but we’re gonna go to places where we can do that.” [12:38, 13:00]
• Rob Stein:
  “The bigger question is whether the trust… has been fractured beyond repair.” [13:32]

Important Timestamps

• 01:50 – U.S. science federally funded since WWII; Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report
• 03:42 – Bruce Alberts on “shooting ourselves in the foot”
• 06:53 – Sylvia Jo, NIH grant manager, on demoralized staff and quitting
• 07:38 – Francis Collins on NIH’s traumatic year
• 08:01–08:42 – Extent of cuts/chaos at multiple science agencies
• 09:14 – Importance of inspiration for next-gen scientists
• 10:14 – Dr. Bhattacharya defends NIH reforms
• 12:38–13:17 – Brandon Coventry considers leaving the U.S. for research
• 13:32 – Questioning the future “grand bargain” of American science

Summary & Flow

The episode traces the roots of science funding in America and succinctly demonstrates 2025’s policy shifts as a generational rupture. The hosts guide listeners from past triumphs to the present “bah humbug year”, describing both the institutional impacts (cuts, morale, DEI-targeted attacks) and the personal ones (career disruption, lost faith, brain drain). The administration’s defense—that change was needed—receives a fair hearing but is strongly countered by lived experience and expert criticism. The young scientist’s story illustrates that this is not just about money, but trust and vision. The show closes with warnings for 2026 and a determination to keep reporting as science’s fortunes hang in the balance.

This episode is essential listening for understanding the seismic changes in American science in 2025—from top-level policy to scientists' personal choices—and what it might mean for innovation and global leadership going forward.