The Department of Defense is terminating numerous grants under the Minerva Research Initiative, which funds social science research for national security. Dozens of researchers studying topics like violent extremism, disinformation, and climate change threats have had their funding cut, signaling a possible end to the 15-year-old program. The initiative's $46.8 million funding supported crucial research on security challenges, from AI applications to drug cartels.
The NIH's recent 15% cap on indirect funding to grantees is facing legal challenges and criticism, as only Congress can legally modify NIH funding formulas. Concerns arise about the impact on research institutions, particularly state universities, with potential significant budget reductions affecting biomedical innovation. The policy change threatens America's global leadership in biomedical research, with estimates suggesting Harvard alone could lose $70 million in funding.
The University of Pittsburgh has suspended Ph.D. admissions due to uncertainty surrounding NIH funding cuts, which would reduce indirect research cost caps from 59% to 15%. Other major research universities are taking similar precautionary measures, while NIH grant funding has already decreased by 56% compared to 2024.
The National Science Foundation fired 168 employees (10% of workforce) to comply with a presidential executive order aimed at reducing federal workforce. The terminations targeted probationary employees and intermittent experts, impacting program officers who manage research programs and grant evaluations. Staff warn that these cuts will significantly slow down grant reviews and scientific progress.
Recent concerns emerge about potential US government interference with academic platforms like arXiv, GitHub, and university IT systems, particularly regarding DEI policies and federal funding. ArXiv's cloud-based infrastructure and dependence on federal funding through Cornell University raise questions about its vulnerability, though bulk download options exist for data preservation.
Japanese funding agencies predominantly support research within strict disciplinary boundaries, leading to underfunding of interdisciplinary research and missed breakthrough opportunities. The authors propose five directions to foster interdisciplinary research in Japan, including shifting to researcher-focused funding and embracing high-risk projects, while highlighting successful models like OIST's approach to cross-disciplinary collaboration.
A detailed expose of the Trump Administration's unprecedented actions to disrupt and restructure US scientific funding agencies, including NIH, NSF, and CDC, through funding freezes, communication bans, and policy changes. Recent directives have targeted diversity programs, restricted scientific communications, and caused widespread uncertainty among researchers and staff, leading to potential long-term impacts on American scientific research.
Social media discussion reveals concerns about a controversial list of forbidden words in US academia, particularly affecting scientific research and technological development. Users criticize Project 2025 and its implications for academic freedom, scientific progress, and diversity in research.