A silver lining to US research funding woes
News Grab: Good morning. It's now 5.35 here in the east. We are allowing all of our stations across the country to join us. Now with the breaking news, we are projecting at this hour the 47th president of the United States. Uh, Donald Trump will be, uh, elected to return to the White House.
Belinda Smith: Since President Donald Trump retook office, the state of scientific research in the States has been well precarious, to say the least. The administration immediately implemented a federal spending freeze, so that included government funded grants and has proposed billions of dollars in cuts to science and health research. Billions with a B. It's just so hard to keep up with all of this, and it's not even been six months. The silver lining is that other countries like Australia are taking advantage of the situation and targeting programs at US researchers. ABC Health reporter, Olivia Willis, has been looking into this and she joins me now. So Liv, what's the latest out of the states when it comes to research funding?
Olivia Willis: So since Trump's return to office in January, there's been. As you say, a real frenzy of government funding freezes, cuts, executive orders, all of which have had a major impact on scientific and medical research on national science and health agencies in the us um, but also science and health funding in, in many parts of the world that are reliant on US funding and that includes, uh, researchers in Australia.
We know that so far. Well over a thousand research grants have been terminated at government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. Together, those total, several billions of dollars, and there's many more grants that have also been flagged for review.
And then on top of that, hundreds of staff have been cut from some of these federal agencies that I mentioned, as well as. The Centers for Disease Control, the FDA and the Trump administration has also targeted specific universities, many of which are Ivy League schools, places like Harvard and Columbia, and frozen their federal funding if they don't comply with a set of demands that the government has laid out.
And they're often things related to affirmative action, diversity initiatives, um, campus protests and so on. Big picture for year, the White House budget. Their proposal now is to cut. The National Institutes of Health, their budget by 40%, and the National Science Foundation's budget by 55%. So very, very significant.
I will say that thinking broadly about these cuts, the government has said that they're essentially about eliminating waste and bias in government funded research. But I think, you know, they're also the result of efforts to combat what the Trump administration has described as gender, ideology, um, and an executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
So we know that many of the cancel grants or grants under review focus on marginalized and underrepresented groups, uh, racial and ethnic minorities. So groups that have, have been largely understudied historically, and the Trump administration perhaps doesn't see this type of research as benefiting broadly the health of all Americans.
Belinda Smith: What other areas of faced cuts?
Olivia Willis: There's also research areas that have lost funding simply because they're not priorities of the Trump administration or, or I guess the government doesn't see them as fitting in with their own scientific agenda. So things like research into vaccine misinformation, uh, hiv aids, climate science, clean energy.
I should note that this is a really fast moving situation and things will probably change. So we know that a number of lawsuits have been launched against the government regarding these funding freezes and cuts. Some of them have been successful. Just a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that the cancellation of more than $1 billion in research grants at the National Institutes of Health.
That they were illegal in order for them to be reinstated. It looks like the government will file an appeal on that judgment, but in the meantime, staff at at certain agencies have been instructed not to cancel any further grants. So it's definitely a fast moving, unfolding dynamic situation. I.
Belinda Smith: And may get dragged through the courts for months and months to come.
Olivia Willis: I think so.
Belinda Smith: Mm. What have these cuts done to researchers?
Olivia Willis: Well, I think it's probably important to think about the context of how significant the US is as a player in research funding globally. So. It's, it's one of the biggest funders in the world of research and development. The National Institutes of Health alone is the biggest funder of medical research globally.
A huge number of researchers around the world would benefit off funding from that agency. Um, and in 2023, it was estimated that the US actually provided 30% of all global r and d funding. So you can. Get a sense there from just how much they contribute to what those cuts would mean in terms of specific research fields.
There's, you know, we're seeing areas of research, I guess, that have been threatened because huge chunks of their funding have been wiped out. And then for the researchers. The people who work at these federal agencies, a lot of people have lost their jobs, um, or their funding. That of course includes principal investigators and professors, but also early career researchers, PhD students, people who rely on scholarships.
And I think the other thing is that for many scientists, it appears to have really created, I guess, a climate of, of fear and worry about their jobs and the viability of their research long term.
Belinda Smith: You are listening to Belinda Smith on the Science Show, and I'm talking to health reporter Olivia Willis, about the state of research funding in the United States.
Now, I've seen reports of countries that are seeing this as an opportunity for them to really beef up their local scientific expertise and try and get that US talent to relocate to their countries and establish their research programs There. What's been going on in that space and what's Australia's done?
Olivia Willis: Yeah, we are, so there's several European universities that have set up initiatives. Um, countries like France and Canada are actively recruiting. The European Commission recently announced 500 million euros to make Europe a magnet for researchers in the next two years. So I suspect that's going to be a popular location for some US scientists when it comes to Australia.
There are a number of research institutes. That I know have received really significant interest from US researchers since these cuts have happened. And recruiting scientists is something that the Australian Academy of Science is actively working on. So in April, they set up a program to nationally coordinate this recruitment effort.
It's called the Global Talent Attraction Program, and I recently spoke to the academy's chief executive, Anna Maria Arabia, about this.
Anna-Maria Arabia: We know that talent is everywhere. Uh, but opportunity is not everywhere. And, uh, this is a, an initiative to attract to Australia leading talent that we know, uh, builds capability in Australia that builds our, uh, scientific talent pool.
Um, that enables scientific advancements and industries, um, to be seeded and to grow. Um, importantly, talent like this train and mentor, the next generation of young Australian scientists, uh, we know it creates jobs. Um, and, and we know science and technology is part of a really, um, rapid, uh, global race at the moment.
Belinda Smith: So the Australian Academy of Sciences calls this a global talent attraction program, but it sounds quite targeted to the us
Olivia Willis: Yeah, that's right. So at least initially it is specifically for US scientists, um, and also Australian scientists in the US who are wanting to return home. As I mentioned, in April, they launched the program and that was about essentially getting funders for it and people to kind of support this research.
But it was actually just this week that they've announced that applications for the program are now open.
Belinda Smith: So it's early days yet really in terms of getting people involved in the program that might be interested in coming to Australia. Do you know if the Australian Academy of Sciences has any priorities in terms of the, the types of research that they're particularly interested in attracting?
Olivia Willis: So the program itself, they've described as discipline agnostic, meaning I think that it, it's not limited to any specific areas of research. That being said, when I spoke to Anna Maria Arabia about it, she told me that one of the reasons they wanted to launch it was so they could assess applications against Australia's.
What they call capability gaps. So she talked about areas like data science, statistics, mathematics, um, all being areas that as a kind of research landscape we need to bolster and also touched on issues about the fact that our population is aging, that we need to decarbonize. So it sounds like there will be.
Some kind of strategic considerations that are made when they're looking at the types of, um, the, the areas of research that they want to bring more expertise in.
Anna-Maria Arabia: We are also looking at areas where there is just outstanding talent that we know if they were to come to Australia, there is no doubt that the multiplier effect and the impact of their contribution, uh, would be many times, uh, what it costs to bring them here.
It is the story of Australia. Uh, so many of our leading scientists today were born overseas. We look at our own fellowship, who Australia's most distinguished scientists, and we did account since 2017. Um, the fellows elected to the academy. 42% of them were born overseas. It is the Australian story. Uh, our research effort is relatively young and since World War II and so many of our stellar scientists, you only need to think of Professor Michelle Simmons or Lydia Roka or Brian Schmidt, all born abroad, all bought their capability here as young scientists who, who seeded, uh, talent here, who nurtured the next generation and have now built Um, research sectors and industries we could have only dreamed of.
Olivia Willis: So what does this program involve? So once the academy has identified scientists that they're interested in bringing to Australia, they'll work with universities and research institutes to look at. Basically where they can place them so the universities and the research organizations will host them.
And my understanding is the Academy's talent attraction program will provide the research funding and the relocation support.
Belinda Smith: Mm-hmm. And what about like local researchers? You know, it, it's, it's a, it's a tough old grind being scientists having to apply for grants and.
Olivia Willis: Is there any support for local people? It is a great question and it's something I put to her as well. You know, as you say, research funding is extremely competitive in Australia. A lot of researchers miss out, and so I asked whether that was a concern, you know, pouring funding into US scientists or international researchers when many of our own researchers are struggling to get grants.
Anna-Maria Arabia: I think we should do everything we can in Australia to nurture young talent, but I feel that these are related, but separate strategies. Uh, so to those young researchers, I would say, uh, through this program we are attracting to Australia, uh, individuals who will inspire you, who will mentor and train you. Um, and provide opportunities that don't exist today. They are not taking away money that would otherwise go to support early career researchers. In fact, they create opportunities for them.
Belinda Smith: That was Anna Maria Arabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science and ABC Health reporter Olivia Willis, filling us in on the US research funding situation. And now a story of scientific endeavor from our shores. Come with me and let's take a trip back to 2013.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
35 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Future NT 2025: Tivan, CDU, Tamboran Resources, Santos, Darwin Port, NT Government, Sitzler partner for Mindil Beach Casino Resort event
As the Northern Territory enters a new era under new leadership, the government has affirmed it is focused on rebuilding the economy – and private investment needs to play an integral role in this. The NT Government has outlined a plan for economic recovery – the Rebuilding the Economy Strategy 2025-2028 – which includes population and workforce growth targets, cutting red tape to ensure investor confidence and strengthening the Northern Territory's role in national economic growth, energy security and defence. For the fourth year, the NT News' annual Future Northern Territory advocacy program returns this month and will interrogate how the government's strategy is progressing, while also applying an aspirational lens to encourage long term vision and planning to ensure a prosperous NT for generations to come. While the government's strategy for the NT economy is important, private investment is pivotal to growth. This year the NT News is proud to partner with leading businesses working to grow the Territory including Tivan Limited, Charles Darwin University, Tamboran Resources, Santos and Darwin Port, as major partners alongside NT Government. Also joining this year's program are minor partners Airport Development Group and Sitzler. Supporting partner Mindil Beach Casino Resort will once again host the premier economic event in its popular pavilion venue. Content themes for the 2025 Future NT campaign include defence, energy, education, tourism, sport and workforce growth, with a call for leaders to set a bold vision for the decades ahead. Speakers at this year's event include NT Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro, nationally renowned social researcher and demographer Mark McCrindle, Tivan Limited executive chairman Grant Wilson, Darwin Port CEO Peter Dummett, CDU Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Community Connection Dr Steve Rogers, and NT Department of Mining and Energy CEO Alister Trier, with more speakers to be announced soon. Tickets are on sale now for the event which will be held from 11.30am on Friday, July 18.

News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘I have more power': Donald Trump flexes after huge win in Congress
A law that will have sweeping effects across the United States. And about as clear an expression of Donald Trump's political power as we have ever seen. Today America's House of Representatives passed Mr Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', the gargantuan piece of budget legislation that contains much of the President's domestic agenda. That includes the extension of tax cuts, funding for immigration enforcement measures, and cuts to Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for low-income Americans. It contains other stuff as well – the thing is almost a thousand pages long, after all – but those are the headline elements. Merits of the bill aside, its passage through Congress today is indisputably a political flex. While Mr Trump's Republican Party controls both the House and the Senate, in the former chamber, its majority is precipitously narrow. And enough Republican members of Congress to scupper the legislation had expressed firm opposition to it, mostly citing its projected multi-trillion dollar cost to America's already bloated federal debt. Yet after days of bickering, and grandstanding, and presumably the odd twisting of an arm behind the scenes, almost all of those members ultimately voted for it anyway. A mere two of them remained immovable in their opposition. 'Rarely have so many members of Congress voted for a measure they so actively disliked,' veteran political journalist Susan Glasser noted in The New Yorker afterwards. Speaking to the media a short time afterwards, Mr Trump was in a jubilant mood. 'You met with a lot of House Republicans yesterday. What got them to yes?' a reporter asked him on the tarmac. 'I think when you go over the bill, it was very easy to get them to a yes,' Mr Trump replied. 'Biggest tax cut in history. Great for security. Great on the southern border. Immigration is covered. We covered just about everything. It's the biggest bill ever signed of its kind.' To be clear, though, the concerns of recalcitrant Republicans were never really addressed. The bill's ballooning effect on America's deficit remains. The worries about political consequences from kicking millions of constituents off Medicaid remains. What happened here, and why it is such a demonstration of power from the President, is: a bunch of Republicans said the bill was unacceptable, Mr Trump did nothing to mollify them, and then they voted yes. In Australian terms, his argument was, 'Yeah nah, the bill is pretty good though mate.' And it worked! 'I think I have more power now. I do,' Trump said when asked about the contrast with his first term in office. That included some legislative wins, including the tax cuts that are now being extended. But Congress did defy Mr Trump on, for example, his effort to repeal the signature healthcare law of his predecessor, Barack Obama. 'You know, I could say, 'Oh gee, I don't know.' I think I probably do, because we have had the greatest record of success. 'We've proven certain things, and yeah, I think probably it's got more gravitas, more power.' Later in his exchange with the press, Trump discussed the bill's signing on Friday, US time. 'So we're signing at about five o'clock, and at about five o'clock, we're going to have B-2s and F-22s and F-35s flying right over the White House,' he said. 'And the Speaker and I and (Republican Senate Majority Leader) John Thune, we are all there together with most Republican senators and congressmen and women. 'And it's going to be a great day. So we'll be signing with those beautiful planes flying right over our heads, all right?' That puts the signing ceremony at about 7am AEST, should you wish to rouse yourself from bed on a Saturday morning to witness it. I should give you some examples of the backflipping here. Some illustrative remarks from the Republicans who crapped on the bill, then promptly turned around and voted for it. The two who did not engage in such impressive gymnastics are Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who was worried about the national debt, and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who didn't like the cuts to health spending. As for the rest, we have a litany of statements contradicted by subsequent actions. Congressman Keith Self, of Texas, said Speaker Mike Johnson and the others lobbying on Mr Trump's behalf were shoving a 'broken bill down our throats'. Mr Self called it 'morally and fiscally bankrupt'. He voted yes. Congressman Ralph Norman, of South Carolina, said it would 'mortgage our future'. Mr Norman voted yes. Congressman Andy Harris, of Maryland, called it 'not ready for prime time'. Yes. California Congressman David Valadao was among 15 Republicans who signed a letter stressing they 'could not support a final bill' that threatened people's access to healthcare. He, and all 14 other signatories, voted yes. Indiana Congresswoman Victoria Spartz said the bill violated 'the minimum fiscal framework, signed by over 30 Republicans, by roughly half a trillion dollars'. Voted yes. 'If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version (of the bill), I won't vote 'present'. I'll vote NO,' said Marlyand Congressman Andy Harris. He voted yes. Congressman Andrew Clyde, of Georgia, called the national debt a serious threat to 'the security, prosperity, and future of our country', vowing to 'fight until the very end'. A few hours later, he voted yes. Over in the Senate, Missouri's Josh Hawley called the legislation's cuts to health insurance 'morally wrong'. He voted yes. Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, warned that 'the deficit will eat us alive'. He voted yes. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the most consistently anti-Trump voice left in her caucus, said the bill was 'not good enough for the rest of our nation', and expressed her hope that it would be amended by the House after being passed by the Senate. She voted yes. And had she gone the other way, the bill would have died. Nothing above includes those Republicans who fumed over the chaotic process, such as Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who called it a 's***show'. To overcome all those objections from his own side of politics, without conceding anything? Quite the success for any politician. One last, telling example: Senator Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, who stood by his opposition to the bill's $US700 billion in Medicaid cuts and voted against it. When Mr Tillis announced his decision, Mr Trump promptly threatened to end his political career. The Senator instead chose to quit, abruptly saying he would not seek re-election. 'The choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington, or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family,' he said. ''It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election.'


West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Public safety and national security come before a scoop
There are two things that should particularly exercise an editor's mind when deciding on the publication of certain sensitive reports. Public safety and national security. Many arguments can be made for providing readers with as much information as possible — that's the business we're in — but some lines are crossed and risk peril when they involve those two areas. It's a long time since the Australian media had to think about the consequences of operating as a restrained free press when the country is at war and might need to defend itself. And long may that continue. But even our Defence Minister just two weeks ago conceded Australia would be dragged in to support the US if it became involved in any Chinese attack on Taiwan. That's a likelihood some defence experts think could be only several years away. With the world holding its breath that an all-in conflagration won't break out in the Middle East after America's intervention to end the war between Israel and Iran, questions remain about whether President Donald Trump is the peacemaker he claims to be, or an opportunistic belligerent. That has caused divisions in Trump's support base because he promised a nation weary of fighting other people's wars that he would not take them into more foreign campaigns. The so-called 12-day war has also raised other questions about America's politically-riven society. It again exposed elements in the American intelligence community — what the MAGA movement calls the Deep State — and embedded in the Left media who would rather the USA be seen to fail than Trump be seen to have a win. That's not just Trump derangement syndrome. That's deeply unpatriotic. And potentially even worse if it led to harm. The editors at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times who decided to take on Trump over the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities based on leaked 'Top Secret' intelligence reports they had not seen, but had only been told about, went out on a limb. Reporters require very strong faith in a source — and usually need wider confirmation — to rely on what they are told about vital documents without seeing them. At the time details of this top-secret intelligence was published, America remained on the brink of being dragged into a precipitous war. There were potentially extreme consequences. The possibility of further American involvement resulting from those assessments of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities was a live issue. That is why the intelligence was done. Not for triumphalism, but to investigate the effectiveness of the bombing and the possibility that more might be needed. In other words, whether more Americans would have to risk their lives to finish the job. Iran had a strong interest in how much the Americans knew — or what they thought they knew. But the desire to score points against Trump was greater than the editors' caution to ensure what they might publish did not damage American interests. They decided it was acceptable to use it to contest Trump's assertion of 'obliteration' without worrying that they were effectively supporting Iran's attempts to make it appear that its nuclear program had not suffered a significant setback. One effect of supporting Iran in that cause was to weaken the pressure on it to stop fighting. And to suppress dissent against Iran's theocracy. Another perverse effect of the publication was to encourage people who hate Trump to cheer for America to fail. And Iran — the globe's biggest sponsor of international terrorism — to win? During the recent conflict, I spent a lot of time watching Qatar-based Al-Jazeera because they had a team of reporters in Tehran providing in-depth reports missing on other cable networks. The Al-Jazeera coverage was superior. I continued switching across to Al-Jazeera in the lead-up to Trump's appearance at the NATO meeting in The Hague which also provided an interesting perspective not available from usual news sources. For instance, there was fascinating live coverage of a joint press conference between the Qatari and Lebanese prime ministers a day after Iran had fired 19 missiles at the US air base just outside Doha. The swirling middle eastern politics at play between Qatar's friendship with Iran and its alliance with the US and Lebanon's involvement in hostilities with Israel reflected that old story about the scorpion and the frog. And then I chanced on live coverage of a presser between Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte — the former longstanding Dutch PM — with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence secretary Pete Hegseth sitting on the sidelines. Rutte began with some extraordinary gushing over Trump for his achievement of forcing NATO members to meet to lift their defence spending to five per cent of GDP. He said Trump had now achieved even more than in his first term when he put the blowtorch on the Europeans which, Rutte claimed, resulted in an extra US$1 trillion being spent on their defence needs. That was news. Reporters then asked Trump about the reports of the leaked intelligence. He didn't hold back: 'CNN is scum,' he said. 'MSNBC is scum. The New York Times is scum. 'They're bad people, they're sick. They've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less. They should not have done that. The pilots hit their targets and the pilots should be credited. They're not after the pilots, they're after me.' Trump then referred a question to Rubio who made a series of important points that need serious reflection by the media. Firstly, he confirmed the intelligence was marked Top Secret without saying that media sources need to justify releasing such information during hostilities. Avoiding giving any detail, which he is sworn to protect, Rubio argued intelligence of that kind always contained a range of scenarios especially when the collected information was not conclusive. Rubio said the leakers had cherry-picked only the most sceptical parts of the assessment, and the subsequent news reports 'mischaracterised' the conclusions. 'I hate commenting on these stories, because often the first story is wrong and the person putting it out there has an agenda,' Rubio said. 'That story is a false story, and it's one that really shouldn't be re-reported because it doesn't accurately reflect what's happening.' Good point. The farther the media reporting got from the original news reports, the more the 'intelligence' was taken as having been passed on truthfully. Those regurgitating the CNN-MSNBC reporting did not know the leakers — so could not question their credibility — were unaware of their motives or which parts had been leaked and which concealed. But the 're-reporting' contained no caveats on credibility, even though everyone knows the febrile animosity of CNN and MSNBC for Trump and his administration. Hegseth described the assessment as 'a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence.' That is completely lost in the re-reporting. CNN's original report makes it clear the network had not seen the intelligence assessment, claiming it had been 'described by seven people briefed on it.' The report suggests a patchwork of snippets. But even their sources clearly didn't see the actual document. Briefed? They may have just heard about it. The Times quoted 'officials familiar with the findings.' 'The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available,' CNN said, clearly acknowledging, but not being constrained by, its preliminary and inconclusive nature. 'But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.' And that was the only point they wanted to make. What the leakers wanted to achieve. Pure political point-scoring. 'This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN before publication, 'and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.' Maybe they did. Maybe not. The truth is still out there. But what is more certain is that the pertinent question about the effectiveness of one of America's most critical armaments — deployed for the first time — should be determined in a less dangerous environment. And not as part of a blatant political vendetta. It wasn't always like this. When the mainstream news media was not so partisan, more considered, less willing to trade national security for clicks. Evaluating the possible impact of a controversial news report is part of an editor's job. But it escalates from brand protection and reputational damage control to something much more important when the report involves national security, particularly during a conflict with the potential to expand.