Ashley Dayer’s aspirations of securing a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant for her bird conservation research faced a challenging journey. With limited resources as an early career professor and balancing motherhood, she endured three unsuccessful attempts before finally receiving funding. However, a recent email brought unexpected news; the project on bird feeders was to lose its funding due to the Trump administration’s decision to terminate research projects involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
“I was shocked and saddened,” expressed Dayer, a Virginia Tech professor in the fish and wildlife conservation department. This abrupt change, she noted, came at a crucial time for her research team, which was poised to complete data analysis. Her disappointment was shared by numerous researchers across the United States, as hundreds of university-driven projects lost their NSF backing due to directives ceasing support for DEI and misinformation studies.
The NSF, founded in 1950 and operating with a $9 billion budget, is instrumental for researchers, offering much-needed financial aid. The decision to cut over 380 grants mid-research marks a significant shift. Projects ceased include combating internet censorship in other countries, collaborating with Indigenous communities to address environmental changes in Alaska, and developing AI methods to reduce bias in medical data. The suddenness of these cuts is unprecedented, alarming many researchers who see the move as aligning with a broader campaign against DEI initiatives.
NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, who had advocated for the foundation’s mission, resigned shortly after supporting research without preferential treatment based on group identity. A statement from the Department of Government Efficiency described the elimination of hundreds of “wasteful DEI grants,” though it lacked specifics on the spending breakdown.
Among the affected projects was Caren Cooper’s at North Carolina State University, seeking to diversify involvement in participatory science. Cooper described the serious implications of the funding withdrawal, particularly for students dependent on stipends from these grants.
Additionally, the NSF announced it would no longer fund research targeting misinformation, citing concerns over free speech rights. Some researchers expressed confusion over this decision, as their proposals included terms like “censorship” and “misinformation” without emphasis on limiting speech.
Eric Wustrow, an engineering professor from the University of Colorado Boulder, whose research addressed internet censorship, questioned the rationale behind these terminations, planning to appeal against his funding loss. Similarly, other researchers whose grants targeted misconceptions and literacy in artificial intelligence found their efforts abruptly halted, despite their alignment with priorities of improved educational understanding.
Whether further cuts are imminent remains unclear, with recent NSF actions resembling previous NIH funding reductions, eliciting lawsuits from scientific and medical communities over the legality of these decisions. As the academic community navigates the upheaval induced by these terminations, Ashley Dayer reflects on the broader implications for scientific inquiry and its future in the United States. “It’s just this outright attack on science right now,” she said, fearing long-lasting impacts on budding scientific minds and national knowledge.