Science is the foundation of our history, causing great strides from the past to where we are today. We have created cutting-edge treatments and technologies that increase quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. Simultaneously, we are plagued with a society that continuously not only denies the value of this science, but is now working to stop it from happening at all.Â
From the start of 2025, the news has been rampant with concerning headlines and new policies put into place, all of which affect the entire U.S. population. For college students, however, a rather concerning development are the restrictions put into place for fundings and grants that come from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.Â
Both of these organizations have funded research intent on progressing medicine and treatment options for patients. The NIH’s budget primarily focuses on medical research, to reduce illness and implement preventative care, for example. The NSF, carrying the slogan “Innovation Anywhere, Opportunity Everywhere,” promotes discovery. In the past few months, however, these priorities seem to have taken a turn for the worse; researchers and scientists across the country are worried about the future of medical research. It has come to the point where they must ask the unfortunate question: is the future of medicine and research still intact? The answer is shaky and the constant uncertainty of today’s political climate only makes the future of this field more confusing. The first step is to understand the implications of what these policies would mean and who would be affected.Â
President Trump’s administration posed the order of a 15% cap on NIH funding for medical research in order to save approximately 4 billion dollars which were provided to research facilities across the nation. This would cut funding down by over 30% for several universities, including the University of Michigan, which is considered one of the top research institutions in the country. This month, the university’s president, Santa Ono, also published a statement regarding the NIH changes and the impact it may have on research funding for UofM. Unfortunately, this poses a threat to more than just long-term science. Post-doctorate workers and scientists rely on grants to pay their salaries as well as promote research. With a funding cut so steep, they may not be able to afford the lifestyle of being a researcher, thus having to resort to industry work. Not only would jobs be lost, but the research they were conducting would be put on hold. How can we expect science and medicine to improve if our most educated and dedicated scientists are unable to fulfill their own basic needs? Currently, a federal judge has blocked this policy from proceeding, though push-back from the Trump Administration is inevitable and the future of the NIH is definitely in unsteady waters.Â
Additionally, a Ted Cruz-affiliated team “investigated” grants that were pushed out to research in the past, determining that grants are being pushed to “woke” research studies. In response, they have published a list of words which are to be red flagged when grants are submitted to the National Science Foundation. These words include words such as “female” (but not male), “prejudice,” or “discrimination.” Grant proposals that use these words are far more likely to not receive funding from the National Science Foundation. As a form of censorship, these research studies will take a backseat in an act of what is essentially enforced discrimination, a word that wouldn’t even be allowed by the NSF.Â
For centuries, women’s health has been under-researched. While something like erectile dysfunction has thousands of studies, endometriosis has less than a thousand real publications. If research like this were to be banned, womens’ health would continue to be ignored, thus lowering quality of life for half of this country’s population. This is only one example of a disparity that will never be bridged as long as there is a policy that stops women’s health from being studied under the guise of avoiding “woke-ism,” the word that many have taken on to criticize the prioritization of equity for marginalized groups in this country.
Women, of course, are not the only marginalized group to be impacted by these changes. People of color, queer people, and those with varying religious identities are simultaneously under fire by these new proceedings. For years, Black women have had higher maternal and infant mortality rates compared to their white counterparts. The research exploring the reasons why these deaths happened were funded both by the NIH and the NSF, with the intent of solving issues that could save hundreds of thousands of mothers and infants. If the policies currently in circulation were pushed, these publications never would have happened and we would be chronically unaware of these serious issues. It forces citizens to ask questions about why certain lives matter over others.Â
As the situation continues to change and develop in political spheres, these policies may change for the worse or the better in the near future. Staying educated on these topics is the main form of action that one can take until we, as news-providers and a country, can know more.