In January, Barbara Bruno changed the titles of her research projects. She got rid of the DEI and environmental justice language. She didn’t want to be a target.

But that didn’t save the UH Mānoa geoscientist.

In mid-April, her federal funding was terminated with no warning.

“They didn’t even carry out the funding for the rest of the project. They just shut it down,” said Bruno.

Bruno, a School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST) faculty member, is not alone. Stories like Bruno’s are becoming increasingly common across the United States, leaving scientific professionals increasingly worried about the future of science in America.

At the University of Hawai’i alone, President Hensel reported on September 18 that 22 grants totaling over $55 million have already been cut. Another $45 million worth is at risk after being deemed unconstitutional. 

Bruno led three research projects aimed at improving equity and diversity in Hawai‘i’s STEM fields. The first was supporting different perspectives in research, such as those from underrepresented communities. The second was for helping women in STEM. The third aims to attract and train young scientists in planetary exploration. 

Her fellow UH researchers were midway through their projects when they lost funding. They were doing fieldwork. One was doing final preparations for a teacher workshop that was to be the following week. They had plane tickets booked for upcoming research trips.

Like many research faculty in sciences at universities around the country, Bruno is not funded through a teaching salary. She is what is referred to as soft money faculty, meaning she gets 100% of her pay from scientific grants. Losing her grants meant she was no longer going to make money.

Even before her projects were cut, Bruno had already begun diversifying her income. After last year’s election, she anticipated that her project funding may be in danger. She decided to start teaching again – for the first time in over a decade – in order to build a safety net amidst growing uncertainty.

On April 18, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sent an email to the University of Hawai‘i regarding funding cuts. 

“The next day, I got an email from UH saying ‘you’re not authorized to spend another penny on this,’” said Bruno.

Two out of her three projects were funded by NSF grants. Those were the ones cut without warning in April.

Six months later, in October, she lost funding for her third project. That one was funded by a NASA grant which ended on Oct. 15. That program will not even be accepting new proposals for an entire year due to the funding cuts to NASA.

FEARS FOR THE FUTURE

Dr. Seth Bushinsky, a researcher and assistant professor at SOEST, is worried about students pursuing science due to the increasing lack of stability.

“One of the key parts of being a scientist is figuring out how to fund your research,” said Bushinsky.

In the past, the U.S. was one of the best countries in the world for pursuing science. Consistent funding for sustained scientific ventures attracted the best scientists from around the world. Bushinsky explained that now that funding has become uncertain, students in science are starting to wonder whether they have made the right career choice.

Bushinsky outlined a stark example of this shift at an annual meeting for a large NSF funded project. The final day of the yearly meeting is geared towards answering the questions of postdocs and students.

Last year, Bushinsky said the students were most interested in improving their grant proposal skills.

“This year the only thing they wanted to hear about was possible pathways out of science,” said Bushinsky.

SOEST graduate student Raffi Isah confirms this growing feeling of uncertainty.

“I’m being funded for two years, from 2024 to 2026, but after that, what’s going to happen to me?” wondered Isah.

Bushinsky said the lack of funding is driving his Ph.D. students to look for positions outside the U.S.

“I don’t blame them, I mean, even if she takes a good postdoc now, the funding might be cut in a year,” he said.

Bruno said she is seeing students who just got their Ph.D. wondering why they invested all the time and money into years of school only to graduate into a market with no jobs.

“When you graduate with a master’s or Ph.D., you’re working for an organization like NOAA, that was the ultimate security right? And now it’s the opposite,” said Bruno.

DEEP CUTS TO SCIENCE

Students’ concerns are well-founded. In May, the White House released a budget that proposes deep cuts to science: a 56.9% reduction to NSF funding, a 47.3% cut to NASA’s science research, and the complete elimination of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.

A loss in federal funding does not just mean a loss of federal science jobs. It also threatens university research positions across the country.

Bushinsky explained how the decrease in funding may lead to a shift in traditionally research-focused universities. With less federal funding, universities would not be able to support the same number of researchers.

“If the funding goes the way the administration would like it to go, universities would only do teaching and not research,” said Bushinsky.

Bushinsky and Bruno think the damage could last far beyond the next budget cycle.

Bushinsky thinks that if federal science cuts continue, science students are going to leave, either pursuing science internationally or choosing a different field of work.

“That is a generation of scientists that we’re going to lose,” said Bushinsky.

Bruno feels the same concern, grateful to have spent most of her career in an era when science was valued instead of dismissed.

“The future of science is kind of dismal,” she said. “It’s very nice to be old.”