Biomedical research does not move forward without the talented and creative individuals who generate the scientific questions and do the research. While the Principle Investigator (PI; the head of the lab) typically generates the scientific question, the studies to address these questions are not successful without the research team the PI assembles. For example, my own team includes a study coordinator, a programmer/analyst, students, and other support staff. Each one of these individuals has gone through their own educational process and training and make their own unique contributions to the overall success of research conducted in the U.S. While the PI might get the bulk of the fame and notoriety associated with the work, no PI is successful without their research team. It is, indeed, a team effort.
Reflecting on my own education, I completed a bachelor's degree in biological science that included work-study as part of my financial aid. Work-study allowed me to work in a lab and start to learn more about how research is done. My first job was to measure glucose in plasma samples using a YSI Model 23A glucose auto-analyzer (this will mean nothing to most of you, but maybe generate a chuckle in those who know). Some of the measurements I made contributed to publications in which my minor contribution was noted in the acknowledgements section of the papers. Progressing to a master's degree in applied biometry (basically biostatistics), I was involved in the design and execution of a clinical study that led to one of my first publications. This study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and partly supported my salary. My training as a Ph.D. student was partly supported by an NIH grant awarded to my mentor, but I was also supported on an NIH T-32 training grant. The T-32 is a grant that supports training of students and post-docs in specialized areas of research and provides additional training beyond the standard curriculum. These grants are written by the faculty of different Ph.D. programs and are used to support Ph.D. students throughout their training. As I completed my Ph.D. and transitioned into my post-doctoral training, I was supported in my first year on another T-32 grant, but then was awarded my own F-32 fellowship from the NIH. The F series of fellowships are designed to support the research and training of individuals students and post-docs. I wrote my own F-32 research proposal that was reviewed and scored high enough to be funded. These all led to my first independent research grant from the American Diabetes Association that formed the basis of my future research program.
All these mechanisms, work-study, individual research grants, T-32s, F-type fellowships, and various other grants are critical in supporting the education and training of future scientists. Without them, we don't have the next generation of talent and we don't have the workforce necessary to move biomedical science forward. I'm not sure I would be where I'm at today, without these various support mechanisms. Yet, the current administration has been clawing back grants using a plethora of false narratives, which has resulted in current students losing their funding, losing their training opportunities, and casting a dark cloud over their futures.
The loss of individual research grants has been catastrophic for Ph.D. programs and in particular, current Ph.D. students whose training is dependent on those grants. What many do not realize is that these grants provide support for individual trainees, providing not just financial support, but also invaluable training opportunities as they learn from their mentors and research teams. This goes a long way in establishing research skills in students. The loss of individual research grants means students are losing their livelihoods and training opportunities. The loss of their stipend means not being able to pay the rent, buy food, and pay for all the other day-to-day necessities of living. The current administration has essentially taken their futures away from them overnight.
The clawing back of grants and the ambiguity of future of research funding due to the rash behavior of the current administration means Ph.D. programs across the nation have accepted smaller incoming classes for Fall '25. Some have even retracted offers initially extended prior to the implementation of the these new policies. So, a large number of students who thought they were starting a Ph.D. program this fall, abruptly learned their opportunity was gone and with the deadline for acceptance long past, have no program to start in the fall. The additional review and restructuring of student visas has added additional unnecessary chaos that has huge negative impact on the future of the U.S. research enterprise (a topic for a separate segment in this series).
The current administration's positions have been short-sighted, but also unnecessarily hastily implemented. It is very clear little to no thought has been given to what the actual consequences of their actions are. The approach of, "Oh, you've got a blister on your toe, we're gonna have to amputate your leg" approach to everything has clearly not worked, as they keep learning what their actions really mean for America. How many times have you heard after they've removed whole parts or fired staff of entire segments of the government, "Oh, we didn't mean to get rid of THAT office" or "Oh, we didn't mean to fire THOSE people." These are real people with lives, families to support, and futures to build. They aren't abstract items you tick off a list. Long term damage to America's research enterprise has already been done. We have already created a long-term shortage of well-trained research professionals by having to shrink our educational programs. Recovery from this will take decades. In the meantime, if this administration continues these policies, the damage will extend beyond decades and will have profound effects on peoples' health as research cutbacks result in slower progress on critical question.
Not a year ago, I could robustly make an argument to a young person to consider a career in science. Particularly those students who wanted to make a difference in society. Biomedical science is one area where "making a difference" comes in many different forms and has a special sense of personal satisfaction that cannot be found in other professions. We ARE making a difference. However, given the current situation, I am finding it more and more difficult to tell young people they should consider a career in science.
