NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions
Read More
0 items
-
$0.00
0
Be the first to know the latest updates
Whoops, you're not connected to Mailchimp. You need to enter a valid Mailchimp API key.
35 Comments
adamc
More damage to science in the United States.
freejazz
This is exhausting in its stupidity.
calvinmorrison
[flagged]
zkmon
Why not take up those projects which align with the goals of the government? After all, science is also also about adaptation and survival.
LightBug1
At this stage, I'm kind of admiring the idiocracy of it all … (as someone outside of the USA).
Apologies. I'm sympathetic to all the decent people there who didn't vote for this (and even to some who did).
But the USA as a whole voted for this … twice. At some stage you all have to own it.
Your democracy has spoken.
antonvs
I never expected to be watching the destruction of US dominance of science and technology in my lifetime.
I suspect the key factor here is humiliation, supported by stupidity of course. Even if Trump is essentially a Russian asset, the damage he’s doing goes far beyond anything his handlers could have hoped for.
The core issue is that Trump spent his life being humiliated by people smarter than him, more socially connected than him, and so on. His primary goal, which may not even be a conscious one, is to destroy the system that humiliated him.
superkuh
Too bad science.org already put themselves behind an impenatrable cloudflare wall. Here is the actual article as text instead of CF javascript: https://web.archive.org/web/20250509014125/https://www.scien…
frob
The NSF funded my graduate research. It feels like someone is going through my past and burning all of the ladders that helped me grow and succeed.
FraaJad
> A spokesperson for NSF says the rationale for abolishing the divisions and removing their leaders is “to reduce the number of SES [senior executive service] positions in the agency and create new non-executive positions to better align with the needs of the agency.”
Reducing bureaucracy is not the same as cutting science funding.
hdivider
"In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards."
I wonder if doge is using ML systems to do this kind of review in a far more centralized way across all of government. With the kind of data they have — obtained by extra-legal means, a.k.a. theft — they could exert a lot of control over crucial funding decisions.
The system is a Wild West almost by design. It evolved to prevent misuse. Not perfect, but hard to control quickly by a single authority. To me it seems doge is doing a centralization play so it can implement any directive from the great technoking.
bix6
Fk everything about this.
fabian2k
As the article mentions, this is part of a 55% cut in budget. So this is not a reorganization but a cut to research funding of at least half. It's potentially an even harsher cut as grants are only part of the budget and they might have to cut even more grants to still finance other obligations from less than half the budget.
The goal seems to be simply to destroy the current research system, and to have the bit that remains forced to adhere to an ideologically pure "anti-woke" course.
ourmandave
Last week, staff were briefed on a new process for vetting grant proposals that are found to be out of step with a presidential directive on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),…
In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards.
So they're going to install gatekeepers to shoot down anything that even hints at DEI. I assume members will be hand picked by the Emperor from a Moms for Liberty short list.
ddahlen
I have been in and out of the academic world my entire career. I have worked as a programmer/engineer for two universities and a national lab, and worked at a startup founded by some professors. There is huge uncertainty with the people whom I have worked with, nobody seems to be sure what is going to happen, but it feels like it wont be good. Hiring freezes, international graduate students receiving emails to self deport, and at my last institute many people's funding now no longer supports travel for attend conferences (a key part of science!).
One of the interesting pieces of science that I think a lot of people don't think about is strategic investment. At one point I was paid from a government grant to do high power laser research. Of course there were goals for the grant, but the grant was specifically funded so that the US didn't lose the knowledge of HOW to build lasers. The optics field for example is small, and there are not that many professors. It is an old field, most of the real research is in the private industry. However what happens if a company goes out of business? If we don't have public institutions with the knowledge to train new generations then information can and will be lost.
srikanth767
Sounds like a bribe machine
Hilift
This isn't about science, issues, or voting. The message is: "We don't like you and it would be better if you weren't around".
Also, why is NSF fielding 40,000 proposals per year? That is 110 proposals per day. Is there really that much science to perform and not enough universities to host it? Not at all. It exists because every state and local government and educational institution is incentivized to solicit federal aid. Even if a school is located in Beverly Hills, federal aid will be solicited at all levels in K-12 and higher education. Republicans are saying they don't want anything to do with that level of centralized government.
chairhairair
The NSF budget is ~$10billion. That's about half of NASA's, 1.2% of the DoD's, 0.5% of the discretionary budget ($1.7 trillion).
Why is this the focus of the admin? Science is one of the few things the US is doing well.
damnitbuilds
[flagged]
ThinkBeat
Hmm the budget is supposed to be approved by congress is it not?
Trump can certainly tell people what he thinks the funding should be,
but until a budget is voted through it is not final?
Or does this agency fall under the White House direct financing of some sort?
ThinkBeat
Having employees of academic institutions doing the vetting
sounds like it could easily evolve into a conflict of interest.
""
The initial vetting is handled by hundreds of program officers, all experts in their field and some of whom are on temporary leave from academic positions.
""
MoonGhost
[flagged]
jimmar
In 2023, the NSF said it gave 9,400 research awards at an average of $239,700 each [1]. That's $2.25 billion. That year, the NSF has a budget of $10.5 billion [2]. Can somebody with more insight into the NSF explain where the NSF money goes?
My PhD was largely funded through government grants, though not the NSF. To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadblocks rather than enablers. There were many opportunities to streamline processes that would help researchers spend more time researching and less time on bureaucratic overhead.
[1] https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/04_fy2025.pdf?Versio…
[2] https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/appropriations
SubiculumCode
We absolutely cannot let science be hit by 50% budget cuts at NSF and NIH. It would be absolutely devastating to our standing in the world. Scientists will ABSOLUTELY leave to Europe and Canada to continue our research. I know that I would.
mattigames
[flagged]
insane_dreamer
The fastest way for the US to lose its competitive edge and status as global leader is to reduce funding for scientific research and academic institutions. They are the Crown Jewels and the primary attraction for talent from around the world.
The damage for the next four years is done. The question is, even if there's a major shift back to sanity with the next prez elections, it'll take years to build up trust and the mechanisms, find and hire talented people willing to do the work, or even find enough talent because of all the grad students and post-docs that are _not_ employed by research labs in the next four years.
It'll take at least a decade to recover, and that may be optimistic. If others fill the gap (China will try but their credibility is low, which is the US's only saving grace), this could be a permanent degradation of the US's research capabilities.
Insane.
xhkkffbf
A big motivation for the Trump administration seems to be the politicization that happened under the Biden regime. There were many large NSF grants given to fund "education" and they were pretty much focused on people with the preferred racial and gender status. These were also substantial grants that were often 3-10 times bigger than the regular grants given to regular scientists. This created much jealousy as well as other practical problems.
The Science article suggests that there's danger of politicization, but that has been the case for many years.
UncleOxidant
> appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $4 billion budget by 55%
NSF is essentially investing in the future and $4B is already a very small amount compared to the whole federal budget. If anything NSF's budget should be increased. Why are they looking to save pocket change when the real money is in the DoD?
njarboe
"The consolidation appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $4 billion budget by 55% for the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October."
This statement is wrong. What a sad state of affairs Science Magazine has become. It should read, "The proposal is to cut the budget by 55% to $4 billion."
The 2024 budget was $9.06 billion and the 2025 request was $10.183 billion.[1]
[1]https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget#budget-baf
varelse
[dead]
Holo-epiphyte
[flagged]
mempko
Think of any technology you use today, it started as a government grant (either NSF, DARPA, DOE, etc).
Looks like the Trump administration is trying to cripple US science and technology research and I don't understand why.
zhivota
I worked at two National Laboratories, Argonne and Idaho, on NSF funded internship grants. The second one turned into a full time job, again on an NSF grant.
The first one was on supercomputing, writing proof of concept code for a new supercomputing operating system (ZeptoOS). The second was on the automated stitching of imagery from UAVs for military applications (at a time when this was not commoditized at all, we were building UAVs in a garage and I was writing code derived from research papers).
Seeing all the programs that launched my career get dismantled like this is really saddening. There are/were thousands and thousands of college students getting exposed to cutting edge research via these humble programs, and I assume that is all now over. It didn't even cost much money. I got paid a pretty low stipend, which was nonetheless plenty to sustain my 20 year old self just fine. I think the whole program may have cost the government maybe $10k total.
$10k to build knowledge of cutting edge science that filters into industry. $10k to help give needed manpower to research projects that need it. $10k to give people who otherwise didn't have a road into science, exactly what they need to get their foot in the door.
I don't know how to describe what's happening here, but it's really, really stupid.
WhitneyLand
What is the root motivation for all of this?
ck2
no-one voted for this
this is tyranny
it might take longer to recover this loss than the lifetimes of anyone alive to witness it
curtisszmania
[dead]