Can U.S. Math Research Survive NSF Funding Cuts?
Mathematics research typically requires few materials. To explore the secrets of prime numbers, investigate unimaginable shapes or elucidate other fundamental mysteries of our universe, mathematicians don't usually need special labs and equipment or to pay participants in clinical trials. Instead funding for mathematicians goes toward meetings of the mind—conferences, workshops and institutes where they gather for intensive sessions to work out math's knottiest problems. Funding also supports the stipends of research fellows, postdoctoral scholars and promising early-career mathematicians.
But under the Trump administration's National Science Foundation, much of this funding is being revoked or cut—which, according to experts, could be catastrophic for the present and future of the field. In one recent example, the NSF canceled funding for the Association for Women in Mathematics' research symposium in Wisconsin just four business days before the event was set to begin in May. The threat to this event catalyzed the American Mathematical Society to offer $1 million in backstop grants to support programs whose federal funding has been cut or remains in limbo. These grants are meant to provide a financial safety net that will temporarily allow math programs, researchers and departments to continue operating—but it's not a permanent solution. (Disclosure: The author of this article currently has a AAAS Mass Media Fellowship at Scientific American that is sponsored by the American Mathematical Society.)
'The funding cut is severe, and all of mathematics will be impacted,' says Raegan Higgins, president of the Association for Women in Mathematics and a mathematician at Texas Tech University.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
Movies and television shows often portray mathematicians scribbling on chalkboards in seclusion, but that picture is often far from accurate. 'None of us work in isolation,' Higgins says. In fact, mathematicians rely heavily on their ability to gather and discuss ideas with their peers—perhaps even more than researchers in other fields do. For mathematicians, conferences, workshops and research talks are not just opportunities to share research and network but also crucial moments to work out tough problems together with colleagues, pose field-propelling questions and generate new ideas.
'It's a thinking science, [and] it's a communication science, so we rely on being together to share ideas and to move the needle forward,' says Darla Kremer, executive director of the Association for Women in Mathematics. According to John Meier, CEO of the American Mathematical Society, 'the ability of mathematicians to gather and talk with each other is absolutely central to the vitality of the field.'
Federal dollars, largely through the NSF, are responsible for a significant portion of math funding. But a lot of that funding is disappearing under the Trump administration. In April NSF staff members were instructed to 'stop awarding all funding actions until further notice.' Over the past 10 years, on average, the NSF has awarded $113 million in grants to mathematics by May 21 of each year. This year the NSF has awarded only $32 million, representing a 72 percent reduction. By this metric, mathematics is one of the most deeply affected subjects, second only to physics, which has seen an 85 percent reduction.
The administration is also canceling and freezing funding that it had previously promised to researchers. More than $14 million of funding already promised to mathematics programs was revoked earlier this year, according to an analysis by Scientific American. In response to a request for comment, the National Science Foundation told Scientific American that 'the agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals.'
This withdrawal of grants is eroding trust and seeding uncertainty, experts say, and it comes with long-term consequences. Even if funding gets renewed again later, it can be very difficult for halted programs to recover. 'If you have to shut down a lab and mothball it, that actually takes time and effort,' Meier says. 'You can't just walk in two weeks later, flip a switch and have everything running again. You've got to rebuild it.' Even in mathematics, that process of rebuilding is time-intensive and not always possible if the space has been reallocated or the people have moved on.
American Mathematical Society leadership fears these cuts will hurt young mathematicians the most. Like in the sciences, the funding cuts are eliminating research experiences and supportive programming for undergraduates, fellowships for graduate students and positions for postdoctoral researchers. Travel funding for conferences is also disappearing, which leaves young researchers to choose between shelling out for airfare and lodging they can't really afford and forgoing major career and research building opportunities. As these opportunities disappear, young mathematicians are beginning to look elsewhere—either to more lucrative jobs in the private sector or to more supportive countries. 'We worry about diminishing opportunities in the United States and people early in their career deciding that maybe there's a more profitable venue for them to pursue mathematics in another country,' Meier says. 'We love good mathematics wherever it arises, but we'd really like to see a lot of it arising in the United States. We think that's very, very important.'
The $1 million in backstop grants can't fill the hole left by the more than $14 million in promised funding that has been denied or the more than $80 million in reduced funding so far this year. But it might be enough to keep many projects afloat simply by offering guaranteed access to funds in a turbulent time. 'I think one of the great difficulties that we're dealing with right now is the high level of uncertainty,' Meier says. Some mathematicians, for example, simply don't know whether their projects are still being funded or not. In some applications for the backstop grants, researchers 'basically talk about being ghosted,' Meier explains. 'They say, 'I can't actually verify that we no longer have funding. I can only tell you my program officer [at the NSF] isn't replying to my request for information.''
Meier hopes the grants can provide some backup for programs that aren't sure where they stand with the NSF. Without it, researchers, universities and independent organizations may find themselves facing impossible situations. Do they pay their research assistants, run their conferences and continue to fund travel out of pocket, assuming all the financial risk themselves and hoping the grants come through? Or do they halt their projects, losing valuable momentum and perhaps leaving important stakeholders unpaid for their work?
Still, the backstop grants are a one-time offering—not a sustainable source of funding for an imperiled field. 'I really view them as trying to take a little bit of the sharp edges off of the sudden loss of funding, as opposed to anything that could sustain the field long-term,' Meier explains.
The effects of the Trump administration's cuts to mathematics research—unlike research on, say, Alzheimer's disease, vaccines or climate change—may not be the most immediately concerning to human health and safety. But experts like Meier say that ignoring the role mathematics plays in that development is shortsighted. As a spokesperson of the NSF itself put it in response to an inquiry about the organization's changing priorities (and as the agency has said on its website), 'Mathematical sciences are crucial to everyday society and play an essential role in the innovation engine that drives the U.S. economy, strengthens national security and enhances quality of life.' And the search for the answers to math's biggest mysteries also seeds development in physics, earth science, biology, technology, and more.
Any progress we make on these questions in the future, Meier says, is 'based entirely [on what] we are doing in research mathematics right now.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
NASA's summer of discontent may be coming to an end
NASA has had a difficult early summer, between a proposed budget that would eviscerate the space agency's science programs and President Trump's sudden withdrawal of billionaire private space traveler Jared Isaacman from the nomination to be administrator of NASA. Even so, there are signs that NASA's fortunes may be looking up. The space agency has a new administrator — sort of. As Ars Technica reports, Trump has appointed Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim NASA administrator, pending the nomination and confirmation of a permanent space agency head. Duffy is said to have a 'colorful background' since he was a cast member in a reality show called 'Real World Boston.' But his four terms as a member of Congress constitute more relevant experience. The careers of Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), another former House member, and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a former senator, demonstrate that political experience can be an advantage when dealing with Congress, which funds and sets the direction of NASA. Duffy may be spread a little thin, having to run the Department of Transportation as well as NASA. It is also unclear what kind of power he will have to affect policy. Duffy could confine himself to trying to enact the White House's agenda, which involves draconian cuts to NASA's science programs and focuses on human space exploration of the moon and Mars under the Artemis program. On the other hand, someone who has ties to Congress and who can get Trump on the phone could make a good start in forming a space policy that is acceptable to both the White House and Congress. Duffy as a bridge between two branches of government could be useful because Congress is in open revolt against the executive branch's space agenda. Senate appropriators are rejecting the cuts to NASA's science programs and are developing a bill that more or less funds them. The bill also reflects ideas advanced in the Big, Beautiful Bill in that it funds the Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft past Artemis III and the Lunar Gateway. The House appropriators are marking up a similar spending bill. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that funds NASA, made the reason pretty clear as to why the appropriators are sticking to the original Artemis plan for now. 'For NASA, the bill reflects an ambitious approach to space exploration, prioritizing the agency's flagship program Artemis, and rejecting premature terminations of systems like SLS and Orion before commercial replacements are ready,' he said. When and how those commercial replacements would be ready is not clear. Much will depend on how private sector launch systems and spacecraft evolve. The SpaceX Starship is one of those launch systems that might become the center of a commercial Earth to moon transportation system. Unfortunately, recent tests of the Starship have resulted in spectacular failures. The Blue Origin Blue Moon is another vehicle that could become part of a commercial lunar transportation system. A smaller, cargo version of Blue Moon is slated to launch on a New Glenn rocket perhaps as early as 2025. The larger crewed version is likely years away from flying. Progress on the Starship, Blue Moon and possibly other spacecraft will doubtless inform Congress' attitude about going commercial to the moon in the future. One possible fly in the ointment is Duffy's somewhat fraught relationship with Elon Musk. While Musk's Department of Government Efficiency did initiate hardware and software enhancements to the air traffic control system, Duffy clashed with Musk over an alleged attempt to fire air traffic controllers in the midst of a series of aircraft disasters. The acrimony between the two men may be a feature rather than a bug so far as President Trump is concerned. Trump withdrew the nomination of Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator partly over alleged personal ties with his fellow billionaire. Questions remain. Can Duffy help to turn NASA, reeling from proposed budget cuts and a leadership vacuum, around? Can he make peace with Musk and continue the NASA-SpaceX partnership that has so profited both organizations? Can Trump find a permanent NASA head in a timely fashion? Can the Senate confirm that nominee quickly? Can the White House and the Congress agree on a budget and a policy that makes sense for America's space ambitions? The answers to these questions should be forthcoming with all due speed. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond ' and, most recently, ' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump's ‘Gold Standard' for Science Manufactures Doubt
Late last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a document detailing its vision for scientific integrity. Its nine tenets, first laid out in President Donald Trump's executive order for ' Restoring Gold Standard Science,' seem anodyne enough: They include calls for federal and federally supported science to be reproducible and transparent, communicative of error and uncertainty, and subject to unbiased peer review. Some of the tenets might be difficult to apply in practice—one can't simply reproduce the results of studies on the health effects of climate disasters, for example, and funding is rarely available to replicate expensive studies. But these unremarkable principles hide a dramatic shift in the relationship between science and government. Trump's executive order promises to ensure that 'federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.' In practice, however, it gives political appointees—most of whom are not scientists—the authority to define scientific integrity and then decide which evidence counts and how it should be interpreted. The president has said that these measures are necessary to restore trust in the nation's scientific enterprise— which has indeed eroded since the last time he was in office. But these changes will likely only undermine trust further. Political officials no longer need to rigorously disprove existing findings; they can cast doubt on inconvenient evidence, or demand unattainable levels of certainty, to make those conclusions appear unsettled or unreliable. In this way, the executive order opens the door to reshaping science to fit policy goals rather than allowing policy to be guided by the best available evidence. Its tactics echo the 'doubt science' pioneered by the tobacco industry, which enabled cigarette manufacturers to market a deadly product for decades. But the tobacco industry could only have dreamed of having the immense power of the federal government. Applied to government, these tactics are ushering this country into a new era of doubt in science and enabling political appointees to block any regulatory action they want to, whether it's approving a new drug or limiting harmful pollutants. Historically, political appointees generally—though not always—deferred to career government scientists when assessing and reporting on the scientific evidence underlying policy decisions. But during Trump's first term, these norms began to break down, and political officials asserted far greater control over all facets of science-intensive policy making, particularly in contentious areas such as climate science. In response, the Biden administration invested considerable effort in restoring scientific integrity and independence, building new procedures and frameworks to bolster the role of career scientists in federal decision making. Trump's new executive order not only rescinds these Joe Biden–era reforms but also reconceptualizes the meaning of scientific integrity. Under the Biden-era framework, for example, the definition of scientific integrity focused on 'professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.' The framework also emphasized transparency, and political appointees and career staff were both required to uphold these scientific standards. Now the Trump administration has scrapped that process, and appointees enjoy full control over what scientific integrity means and how agencies review and synthesize scientific literature necessary to support and shape policy decisions. Although not perfect, the Biden framework also included a way for scientists to appeal decisions by their supervisors. By contrast, Trump's executive order creates a mechanism by which career scientists who publicly dissent from the pronouncements of political appointees can be charged with 'scientific misconduct' and be subject to disciplinary action. The order says such misconduct does not include differences of opinion, but gives political appointees the power to determine what counts, while providing employees no route for appeal. This dovetails with other proposals by the administration to make it easier to fire career employees who express inconvenient scientific judgments. When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai argued that 'public perception of scientific integrity completely eroded during the COVID era, when Democrats and the Biden administration consistently invoked an unimpeachable 'the science' to justify and shut down any reasonable questioning of unscientific lockdowns, school shutdowns, and various intrusive mandates' and that the administration is now 'rectifying the American people's complete lack of trust of this politicized scientific establishment.' But the reality is that, armed with this new executive order, officials can now fill the administrative record with caveats, uncertainties, and methodological limitations—regardless of their relevance or significance, and often regardless of whether they could ever realistically be resolved. This strategy is especially powerful against standards enacted under a statute that takes a precautionary approach in the face of limited scientific evidence. Some of our most important protections have been implemented while acknowledging scientific uncertainty. In 1978, although industry groups objected that uncertainty was still too high to justify regulations, several agencies banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in aerosol spray cans, based on modeling that predicted CFCs were destroying the ozone layer. The results of the modeling were eventually confirmed, and the scientists who did the work were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Elevating scientific uncertainty above other values gives political appointees a new tool to roll back public-health and environmental standards and to justify regulatory inaction. The result is a scientific record created less to inform sound decision making than to delay it—giving priority to what we don't know over what we do. Certainly, probing weaknesses in scientific findings is central to the scientific enterprise, and good science should look squarely at ways in which accepted truths might be wrong. But manufacturing and magnifying doubt undercuts science's ability to describe reality with precision and fealty, and undermines legislation that directs agencies to err on the side of protecting health and the environment. In this way, the Trump administration can effectively violate statutory requirements by stealth, undermining Congress's mandate for precaution by manipulating the scientific record to appear more uncertain than scientists believe it is. An example helps bring these dynamics into sharper focus. In recent years, numerous studies have linked PFAS compounds —known as 'forever chemicals' because they break down extremely slowly, if at all, in the environment and in human bodies—to a range of health problems, including immunologic and reproductive effects; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and behavioral changes; and increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. Yet despite promises from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to better protect the public from PFAS compounds, efforts to weaken current protections are already under way. The president has installed in a key position at the EPA a former chemical-industry executive who, in the first Trump administration, helped make regulating PFAS compounds more difficult. After industry objected to rules issued by the Biden administration, Trump's EPA announced that it is delaying enforcement of drinking-water standards for two of the PFAS forever chemicals until 2031 and rescinding the standards for four others. But Zeldin faces a major hurdle in accomplishing this feat: The existing PFAS standards are backed by the best currently available scientific evidence linking these specific chemicals to a range of adverse health effects. Here, the executive order provides exactly the tools needed to rewrite the scientific basis for such a decision. First, political officials can redefine what counts as valid science by establishing their own version of the 'gold standard.' Appointees can instruct government scientists to comb through the revised body of evidence and highlight every disagreement or limitation—regardless of its relevance or scientific weight. They can cherry-pick the data, giving greater weight to studies that support a favored result. Emphasizing uncertainty biases the government toward inaction: The evidence no longer justifies regulating these exposures. This 'doubt science' strategy is further enabled by industry's long-standing refusal to test many of its own PFAS compounds—of which there are more than 12,000, only a fraction of which have been tested —creating large evidence gaps. The administration can claim that regulation is premature until more 'gold standard' research is conducted. But who will conduct that research? Industry has little incentive to investigate the risks of its own products, and the Trump administration has shown no interest in requiring it to do so. Furthermore, the government controls the flow of federal research funding and can restrict public science at its source. In fact, the EPA under Trump has already canceled millions of dollars in PFAS research, asserting that the work is 'no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.' In a broader context, the 'gold standard' executive order is just one part of the administration's larger effort to weaken the nation's scientific infrastructure. Rather than restore 'the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good,' as the executive order promises, Elon Musk and his DOGE crew fired hundreds, if not thousands, of career scientists and abruptly terminated billions of dollars of ongoing research. To ensure that federal research support remains low, Trump's recently proposed budget slashes the research budgets of virtually every government research agency, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the EPA. Following the hollowing-out of the nation's scientific infrastructure through deep funding cuts and the firing of federal scientists, the executive order is an attempt to rewrite the rules of how our expert bureaucracy operates. It marks a fundamental shift: The already weakened expert agencies will no longer be tasked with producing scientific findings that are reliable by professional standards and insulated from political pressure. Instead, political officials get to intervene at any point to elevate studies that support their agenda and, when necessary, are able to direct agency staff—under threat of insubordination—to scour the record for every conceivable uncertainty or point of disagreement. The result is a system in which science, rather than informing policy, is shaped to serve it.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. is losing its biotech edge over China — and that's bad news for the Bay Area
From gene therapies to cancer breakthroughs, California has been the driving force behind America's biotechnology industry. But today, that edge is slipping. A National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report to Congress in April stated that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China in biotechnology innovation, and called for urgent investment and strategic coordination to maintain global leadership. Genentech's founding in 1976 in South San Francisco marked the start of the modern biotech era, and, ever since, California has been at the forefront of countless scientific discoveries and medical innovations. However, recent funding cuts and an overreliance on China for manufacturing pipelines leave our nation vulnerable. As the report urges, the U.S. must prioritize biotechnology at the national level or risk relying on China to use this strategic power for good. In 2011, the Chinese government declared biotechnology a ' strategic emerging industry ' and has since committed billions to secure dominance in areas like synthetic biology, gene editing and biomanufacturing. In 2024 alone, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials, surpassing the United States and accounting for nearly 40% of global trial activity. Despite U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration designed to counter China's economic influence, China's gross domestic product has remained strong, fueling even greater investment in strategic sectors like biotechnology. By contrast, the U.S. continues to lose ground, constrained by outdated regulatory frameworks and a lack of coordinated federal strategy. While China is building a biotech empire with deliberate, state-backed coordination, the U.S. is stuck playing defense with shrinking budgets. U.S. federal support for biomedical research is slipping, with the budget for the National Institutes of Health facing a 40% cut in the coming year. For a region like the Bay Area, home to some of the world's most promising biotech startups and research institutions, these cuts have a direct toll, including the termination of $314 million in funding that was to be used to train the next generation of biomedical and health researchers. Major institutions like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley are now bracing for delayed projects, staffing freezes and reductions in early-career fellowships that are vital to sustaining long-term innovation. On a national level, promising studies have been halted midstream, leaving research gaps in breakthrough treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other major infectious diseases that impact millions of Americans. When U.S. investment in domestic biotech falters, it slows innovation at home and creates an opening for global competitors to step in. China's government is strategically positioning its biotech sector to fill the gap left by stalled American research. Just last month, U.S. pharmaceutical firms signed 14 licensing deals with Chinese biotech companies worth up to $18.3 billion, underscoring our growing dependence on China's rapidly maturing R&D capabilities. This shift carries significant implications for California. It is home to over 16,500 life sciences companies and establishments, more than any other state, according to the California Biotechnology Foundation. The state directly employs more than 466,000 workers and generates more than $414 billion in annual economic output. In 2023, California led the nation in venture capital investment, raising over $34 billion for life science companies. Further, California accounted for 40% of all U.S. life sciences patents filed in 2023, and more bioscience patents are issued to California researchers than to those in any other state. Losing ground to China isn't just an economic risk; it's also a national security threat that could reshape who controls the future of health care. While the U.S. system is built on competition and patient outcomes, China's state-controlled model prioritizes strategic control and global influence. In America, ethical safeguards, transparency and regulatory review shape medical progress. In China, the government's control allows for faster approvals but also looser oversight, creating the risk of untested or misused science. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology warned that China's biotech advances could be weaponized — from battlefield-ready biologics to more nefarious applications. As a scientist working in biotechnology in the Bay Area, I understand that California plays a central role in this global race. From early-stage research in university labs to large-scale manufacturing by leading biotech firms, the state's infrastructure, talent and capital drive America's competitiveness. The Bay Area remains one of the most dense and productive biotech ecosystems in the world, thanks to its concentration of top-tier research institutions, world-class hospitals, a culture of entrepreneurship and the ability to attract the world's best and brightest to its academic and industrial ecosystem. But even here, the warning signs are hard to ignore. Federal NIH cuts have already disrupted major research projects at UC campuses, impacting our ability to attract talented students to our graduate and postdoctoral research programs, while venture capital is increasingly eyeing faster-moving regulatory environments abroad, preferring to license in late-stage assets from China instead of funding early-stage research at home. If Washington fails to prioritize a national biotech strategy, California's innovation engine could slow just as competitors abroad gain momentum. The state's economic future, public health leadership and ability to attract global talent are all at stake. China is no longer a distant biotech challenger and is actively reshaping the industry with its speed, regulatory agility and cost-efficiency, shifting the innovation center of gravity away from the U.S. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has made clear that this is not just a matter of competition, but a strategic threat with long-term consequences for public health and national security. If America is to remain a global leader in biotechnology, we must urgently invest in our domestic research ecosystem and rebuild the infrastructure that has powered decades of discovery or be forced to surrender it to a rival that plays by different rules. Ash Jogalekar is a scientist and science writer based in the Bay Area. He is a scientist in residence at the Oppenheimer Project and works on emerging threats and technology risks in areas like biotechnology and AI.
