American Scientist

Tallies vary, but it appears that recent terminations of grants issued by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies number in the thousands and amount to billions of U.S. dollars. Many scientists who have been swept up in these terminations have been posting online about their research that has been cut short. A common thread from these posts is that there is little public understanding of the level of oversight that goes into both grant proposals and grant management. As one researcher posted on social media, “I feel like some people must think that grants are like medieval patronage arrangements or something. Like we just show up with an open burlap sack and they shake a lot of money into it, and we go away and do whatever we feel like doing.”

The reality, as those working in science know well, is that researchers invest immense time and work into crafting grant proposals, which go through a grueling review process before they are selected. Then awardees are required to provide accounting for all funds, as well as to submit reports about the work conducted with the grant funding.

That gap between public perception of research and research as it is actually performed is one of the points made in this issue’s Science Policy column by David Shiffman, “‘Why Are We Funding This?’” As Shiffman writes, “Long before a public dollar goes to a research project, a whole team of experts in this kind of work must pass judgment and decide that it is important and worth funding.”

Shiffman goes on to discuss how some scientific studies taken out of context can be made to sound frivolous, but many kinds of basic science research have led to surprising and transformative discoveries. There was no way to know up front which study would lead to that kind of success, however. “We therefore need to attack problems from many different angles, knowing that some approaches will fail,” Shiffman notes. Training upcoming students to think like scientists, Shiffman adds, means supporting wide-ranging scientific curiosity, free thinking, and problem-solving.

The work being done by every researcher is important to the overall health of the scientific enterprise. At American Scientist, we have always looked for ways to increase support and visibility for scientists. Expanding on that tradition, we are opening up our Letters to the Editors page to any researcher who would like to share with readers why their research is important. If you have had your funding affected, if you are feeling like people aren’t aware of how deeply scientific research is being undermined by sudden funding changes, or if you want to help increase understanding of what is at stake and why research matters, please consider writing in with your own research story.

Please keep your letter submissions to no more than 300 words. Let us know if you would like us to keep your letter anonymous, or if you are comfortable sharing your name, location, or both. Please note that as a nonprofit, American Scientist is not permitted to endorse any specific legislation or candidate, but we can support evidence-based science policy, so please keep your submissions nonpartisan. Focus your submission on why your work is important, effective, and worth carrying out. Send your submissions to editors at amscionline dot org with the subject line “Science Is Important.” Submissions may be published in print or on our website, and may also be featured on social media.

We hope that you will take the time to publicly describe your research. We know that your science is rigorous and meaningful, and others should know that as well.