One of my friends said to me the other day, “I have no idea what happens in Science Quad. I take my three Div. III requirements and get out.” For some humanities-focused students and faculty, the idea that science is under attack is difficult to address with urgency. It’s not hard to see why: How can threats to the sciences top our list of priorities, given the myriad other threats to higher education, if one doesn’t study science?
The irony, of course, is that the erosion of science weakens every discipline. To defend the liberal arts without defending science is to protect the shell of the institution while letting its foundation crack. Science is under attack, and the College needs to take action to protect it.
In a stingingly vague executive order, President Donald Trump made a call for a return to a “Gold Standard Science” that supposedly differentiates between scientific fact and political motivation. The Trump administration’s attitude toward scientific institutions, especially in academia, sees federal funding as wasteful and contrary to national interests. In reality, this policy allows government officials, many of whom lack scientific backgrounds, to decide what research qualifies as “Gold Standard”; the rest is bureaucratic waste. The federal government has therefore taken unprecedented steps to cut research funding, cutting 40 percent and 56 percent of academic funding to the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (NSF), respectively.
Many of these cuts have hit grants for research on hot-button scientific issues, such as vaccines, climate change, and public health. Importantly, scientific training initiatives such as NSF-funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) aimed at recruiting young scientists have been disproportionately affected.
What is the impact of these cuts? As any of your econ major friends can tell you, when people are not sure when or if their next round of funding is coming, they become much more risk-averse. Primary Investigators (PIs) lead labs, and when grant money becomes scarce, they can be more conservative in the chances they take. When PIs grow cautious, they stop pursuing the kinds of lengthy, risky, and paradigm-shifting projects that lead to breakthrough discoveries, such as high-throughput approaches to drug discovery — where labs can test thousands of compounds and targets at once to find unexpected hits — and large-scale collaborative projects. Instead, labs double down on “safe bets” that can yield modest publications but are unlikely to change the world. They are also more reluctant to — or unable to afford — take chances with aspiring new researchers or welcome students into their labs.
Is there waste in scientific research? Absolutely; it’s simply the nature of the field. Labs that train new scientists tolerate the allocation of resources that will not immediately lead to discoveries — most ideas won’t pan out, and training undergraduates runs the risk of hundreds of dollars worth of chemicals literally being poured down the drain (this has obviously never happened to the author). But will indiscriminate “slicing and dicing” make research more efficient? Absolutely not. Federal funding for academic research allows colleges and universities to take on risky ideas that corporations and foundations won’t touch. Once proof of concept is established, more investment leads to the development of the life-saving technology behind countless therapies, household appliances, solar panels, and GPS technology, just to name a few. As funding for basic research is depleted, new and exciting ideas will be tested less often, leading to projected annual economic losses of up to $16 billion, or $2.56 lost for every dollar the Trump administration saves by cutting funding, according to the Center for American Progress.
For undergraduates, this risk-averse environment can be devastating. Training programs like REUs are often students’ first real exposure to scientific research. Without them, more and more students — especially those from underrepresented backgrounds — lose opportunities to see themselves as scientists. At every step, the message to young researchers has become the same: Science is precarious, careers are unstable, so maybe you should look elsewhere or apply to grad school abroad, a decision that many of my friends are facing.
This is how we lose a generation of American scientists — not in one dramatic sweep, but in a slow erosion of confidence, opportunity, and imagination. Already up to 75 percent of polled scientists have considered leaving the country for greener pastures (and more funding) in Canada or Europe.
The College is uniquely positioned to push back. Per capita, we are the ninth-largest producer of PhDs in the nation. While the College receives far less federal research funding than major research institutions, this funding has allowed our labs to take risks, train more young scientists, purchase cutting-edge instruments, attend conferences, and collaborate with other institutions. Yet this summer, the College paused the certification of research grants in response to rapidly shifting federal requirements on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with no clear timeline for resuming funding. The pause was a responsible decision at the time, but there has been no communication from the administration to students on when that pause might end. To stall now is to give up ground when science most needs defense. The College must demonstrate that it is actively dedicated to finding other sources of funding and doing everything that is reasonable to begin certifying federal grants again.
To be clear, the College faces some incredibly tough decisions: Federal grants today come with requirements that are often ludicrous and threatening to the very principles that our community values. To accept and spend a federal grant is to invite political scrutiny and agree to a long list of vaguely “anti-DEI” policies lest the grant be terminated; these requirements are loosely defined and further contribute to an elevated sense of risk. But if the College chooses not to pursue federal research funding in the wake of changing regulations, it implicitly weakens its liberal arts mission. Our campus community, therefore, needs to fight forced ignorance with education. Students who don’t often spend time thinking about scientific research don’t know what is being threatened.
So, if you’re reading this, I have a couple pieces of advice: Take a science class — preferably with a lab (you heard me right!) — even if you don’t need to. Learn how to question what you observe, how to analyze data, how basic principles inform discoveries, and how science fosters imagination for what could be.
The College must also bring prominent scientists to campus, just as it welcomes politicians and other scholars. These researchers should not just be platformed in departmental seminars with science students and faculty, but in larger events with interdisciplinary audiences. A renewed campuswide spirit of scientific inquiry can inspire new thinkers and combat a rising tide against the sciences in the United States.
A government that seeks to choke discovery is a government that fears imagination. So I implore students, faculty, and administrators who call Hollander and Schapiro home to take a walk across Route 2, as scary as it might be. Learn what you are missing and what the Trump administration wants to take from you. If we let fear and ignorance dictate our future, we won’t just lose a generation of scientists, we’ll lose the capacity to ask questions at all.
Sam Drescher ’26 is a chemistry major concentrating in BIMO and public health from Scarsdale, N.Y.
