The Threat to Science Is Real. Here’s What Researchers Can Do.

In just a month and a half since President Donald Trump began his second term, significant actions by his administration have placed America's scientific research enterprise in jeopardy. These decisions threaten funding, restrict data access, and compromise scientific integrity, potentially harming academic freedom, innovation, and public health. As the nation’s competitive edge in global research diminishes, the scientific community faces a crucial moment: adapt and respond to these threats with new strategies, or risk enduring consequences. In this post, we offer specific recommendations to help researchers defend science's integrity and ensure evidence-based discourse remains crucial for shaping our future.

A Crisis Unfolds

Upon entering office on January 20, 2025, President Trump and his administration have enacted multiple policies detrimental to academic and research institutions. Here’s an overview of the most critical issues:

Funding Freezes and Cuts

The administration imposed a freeze on specific types of federal funding, notably affecting grants distributed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This freeze created immediate financial uncertainty, delaying the processing of new grants as research grant review panels were suspended. Compounding the issue, substantial funding cuts at NIH, NSF, and the Department of Energy (DOE) have been proposed, focusing on biomedical and environmental sciences.

A pivotal policy change involves capping NIH indirect cost reimbursements at 15 percent, far below the historical averages of around 30 percent. This abrupt reduction is set to potentially shrink federal research funding by $100M-$200M for prominent academic institutions annually.

Restricting Data and Resources

The administration has undertaken actions to remove from public access a multitude of federal data sources, particularly those related to climate change, public health, and social equity. Databases like CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were made inaccessible, risking the integrity and reproducibility of ongoing research.

Targeting Research Content

The administration has enacted executive orders, agency memos and vague guidance banning or suppressing research on specific areas that conflict with political agendas, such as climate change and equity-related studies. This has led to terminated grants and contracts as well as a de facto restriction on these research topics, fostering an atmosphere where researchers are compelled to self-censor to secure funding.

Structural Threats to Academic Research

The administration's actions risk unraveling the social contract between academic research and the federal government formed post-World War II—one that acknowledged the vital role of science in national security and economic growth.

The Erosion of Academic Freedom

Actions such as the Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing executive order threaten to curtail academic discourse by terminating equity-related grants. This erosion of academic freedom stymies groundbreaking inquiry and innovation by promoting self-censorship and delivering a chilling effect across research domains.

Jeopardizing Scientific Integrity

The active suppression and potential alteration of critical data collections, like those at the CDC, threaten to blur the lines between science and politics. Such interference compromises scientific integrity by fostering an atmosphere where politically inconvenient findings may be modified or hidden, gravely undermining public trust and the process of peer-reviewed validation.

Financial Instability and Sustainability Risks

Reductions in funding and indirect cost reimbursements threaten the economic foundations of research institutions, particularly smaller or geographically disadvantaged entities. This has led to hiring freezes, reduced graduate admissions , tuition increases, and disruption of large-scale research projects, stalling innovation. In 2024 NIH funding was responsible for over 412,041 jobs and $93 billion in economic activity. Cuts threaten these gains, jeopardizing U.S. competitiveness as global rivals continue to bolster their research capabilities.

Meeting the Current Moment: What Researchers Can Do.

While legal and institutional interventions are underway to combat these developments, the actions we’ve outlined above, when taken together, make it clear that the core principles of scientific research are under assault. The research community must mount a response to protect the integrity and autonomy of science. While many researchers view themselves as impartial seekers of knowledge rather than activists, political interference in scientific research unquestionably causes harm.

And in a climate that’s actively hostile to science, silence doesn’t offer protection—it just makes it easier to dismantle the research enterprise. So, how can researchers proactively defend our capacity to conduct our work?

Find a Way to Defend Evidence that is Right for You

There are many ways to advocate for science. It is important to consider the strategy and approach that are most appropriate for your unique situation.

If you’re in a position to publicly advocate for science, you can participate in organized outreach efforts like those offered by 5calls.org, join walks or marches that align with your priorities, or simply reach out directly to your own elected representatives with your concerns. AcademyHealth’s Situation Reports often include sample scripts tailored for researchers so that they can maintain their expert voice while educating policymakers about what the evidence demonstrates.

If you’re not in a position to do direct outreach, or simply don’t wish to do so, you can support professional associations that do advocacy on your behalf. Join and donate to organizations that share your values and priorities. Advocacy takes significant time and effort, and the financial resources of members and donors are critical accelerants. Many organizations also have greater influence with greater numbers.

AcademyHealth is the voice of health services research in Washington. Like many professional groups we engage in an advocacy tactic known as “sign on letters.” These are letters circulated for signatures that are used to show broad support or endorsement for a specific issue or policy. AcademyHealth recently did this in support of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Signing your name or organization (if appropriate) to such letters can be very helpful. If you’re not yet an AcademyHealth member, consider joining us to support this work. And if not us, check out other associations who are also working to ensure evidence is brought to bear in policy discussions.

Finally, you can support colleagues who are speaking out. In times of uncertainty, peer and social networks provide critical support to affected individuals. Public messages of support, networking connections, or a virtual coffee to talk about the challenges you’re facing can make someone feel less alone.

You can do this via social media or join one of AcademyHealth’s monthly virtual events to connect with our leadership as well as fellow AcademyHealth members.

Keep Sharing Your Work, but Do So Strategically

This is not the time for researchers to retreat. If we disengage from academic forums out of fear, we’re participating in a weakening of science’s role in public discourse. Indeed, standing up for evidence can be as simple as just showing up – making every effort to continue to present and publish your work. This environment requires more thoughtfulness around this, but it’s possible.

If certain research topics are politically sensitive, researchers can frame their findings strategically. For example, replace broad terms with core meanings, center on outcomes rather than ideals and focus on root causes. This year, AcademyHealth has extended the deadline by which Annual Research Meeting (ARM) presenters can edit the title of their abstract to allow for changes to help frame work in more effective ways. We have also extended the deadline by which accepted presenters must confirm their attendance to accommodate longer than usual travel approval processes.

Of course, a huge challenge we’re all facing now is a lack of funding to cover travel. If your institution has enacted a travel ban, consider seeking clear, written reasoning behind the ban and proposing case-by-case exemptions. Exploring alternative funding options through private institutions or crowdfunding may also be necessary—a reflection of the unusual times we face.

Should traditional publishing or conference attendance be unavailable, exploring other channels to share your work remains crucial. Developing skills in new communication methods could greatly enhance your ability to reach those who can benefit from your research.

Build Your Skills in Effectively Communicating with End Users of Evidence

Communicating in a way that sparks action among end users of research requires researchers to speak and write differently than the way we are traditionally trained. Writing op-eds, creating podcasts, sharing on social media, using YouTube, or collaborating with journalists are not familiar activities for most researchers, but fortunately, there are several resources available to help and we’ve listed some freely accessible ones below.

Additionally, AcademyHealth offers valuable resources to support your communication efforts. Our 3-week virtual course, "Communicating for Impact," available for registration until March 19, is designed to help researchers sharpen their communication skills and grab the attention of health system leadership, media, policymakers, funders, and other end users.

As the research enterprise faces unprecedented threats, researchers must choose between passivity and actively defending their work. Silence is not neutrality—in today’s climate, it risks facilitating the erosion of scientific foundations. By engaging with policymakers, supporting advocacy efforts, and communicating strategically, researchers can safeguard scientific integrity and ensure evidence-based discourse remains vital. Through these actions, we not only protect scientific inquiry but also reinforce its essential role in shaping our future.