Cutting direct and indirect research budgets at NIH, NOAA, FEMA, and many other agencies will lead to a decline in research infrastructure, stunted scientific innovation, and loss of talent, which could critically impact the development of treatments, public health, and disaster preparedness, and put U.S. superiority over China at risk.
In 1934, the Nazi Minister of Culture, Bernhard Rost, asked the mathematician Hilbert: "What is the state of mathematics in Göttingen now that we have freed it from Jewish influence?" And Hilbert answered him: "Mathematics in Göttingen? It no longer exists." And indeed, the scientists, mainly the Jews, left, mainly for the United States, allowing it to become the leading scientific power in the world at the end of the war. In a few years, a senior member of the Republican government will come to inquire, for example, at cancer research institutes about the progress made in medicine, and they will tell him - there is no more medical research in the United States because you have purged all the scientists who you claim were Schmalkaldic.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed the deliberate destruction of the US scientific infrastructure by President Donald Trump and his demolition contractor Elon Musk, in the name of an extremist ideology that sees the educated as the enemy of the people without understanding the implications of the move for the very fact that the US is a global power.
Although the cuts are presented as efforts to save on unnecessary expenses, in reality they could harm research and science capabilities in a variety of areas, from collecting critical data on climate change to preventing natural disasters and impacts on public health. Ultimately, the effects could also be reflected in the national economy and the quality of life of citizens, with the lack of information and innovation potentially leading to slow and inadequate responses to emergencies and future challenges.
The cuts are not intended solely to save budgets – they also reflect an ideological approach aimed at reducing state involvement in areas where there is a strong political or ideological consciousness. In other words, the cuts are not directed solely at addressing waste, but are sometimes also chosen to reduce the activities of bodies and programs that constitute an ideological challenge to the conservative government.
Impacts on science and the environment:
- NOAA and climate research:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provides critical data on climate trends, environmental changes, and extreme events. Budget cuts could hurt data collection, advanced modeling, and the delivery of information to the public and researchers. The result could be a loss of the ability to identify and prepare for climate change or natural disasters, which could cause serious economic and health damage. - Dealing with natural disasters:
Organizations like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) play a central role in responding to natural disasters and preventing health risks during crises. Cuts to their services could lead to delays in emergency responses, reducing the ability to prepare for sudden and potentially life-threatening events. - Impact on research and innovation:
Alongside bodies that provide essential environmental data, there are also government bodies that assist in scientific research and the development of new technologies in areas such as renewable energy, green transportation, and environmental technologies. Cuts in these areas could hinder scientific advancement, slow the transition to clean technologies, and harm the ability to deal with the challenges of climate change. - Public Health:
Scientific research in the environmental field is the basis for setting regulations and guidelines aimed at protecting public health – for example, in the areas of air quality, water management and food safety. Impairment of this research may lead to outdated data, difficulties in identifying pollutants or environmental risks and negatively affect the establishment of effective health policies.
NIH research budget cuts
The cessation of funding and the limitation of support for indirect costs at the NIH could cause a deep crisis in the American research system. This funding, which helps institutions keep their laboratories, facilities, equipment, and technical support companies in good condition, is not just "operating expenses," but an integral part of a social agreement between the government and academia that led to the revolutionary development of research in the country. When these budgets are drastically reduced, research institutions are required to bear operating costs themselves or make extensive cuts in other areas, which could lead to the cessation of important research projects, the layoff of technical staff, and a decline in the quality of research.
Delays in the discovery of new drugs and scientific breakthroughs
The implications of the move are far-reaching: First, a decrease in investment in research infrastructure could lead to delays in critical scientific discoveries – from the development of new drugs to the development of advanced technologies that help solve health and economic problems. When research institutions have difficulty maintaining their academic and infrastructural standards, there is a danger that American universities will prevent or reduce their research activity, which could lead to a decrease in the quantity and quality of scientific breakthroughs.
In addition, limited funding also affects the ability of institutions to attract promising young talent – mathematicians, physicists, biologists and health scientists – as an unstable research environment that does not offer the necessary support may cause talented scientists to leave for places where government support and collaboration with industry are higher. Ultimately, a decrease in investment in research may negatively affect public health, as critical research in the fields of medicine, biotechnology and public health is delayed or stopped, which may slow the pace of development of new treatments and cause heavy losses in the quality of life of US citizens.
Thus, while the government claims that the move will save money and direct more money to research, the devastating effects on the research infrastructure and innovation could lead to a significant slowdown in scientific and technological progress in the country – which would affect not only the academic community, but also the ability of the United States to maintain its position as a global leader in research and innovation.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
Sources
14 תגובות
Confused children and mentally ill adults are not cured by removing vital organs, deforming them, and physically and chemically castrating them, just as schizophrenia is not cured that way. There are medications and psychological treatment for mental illness, just as schizophrenia is not celebrated. There is nothing to celebrate, encourage, or justify. Homosexuality is neither pride nor shame. It is a disease.
Medications don't just save the lives of leftists. If your loved one dies from a disease that almost had a cure but research on it was stopped, what would you say then?
And by the way, I have no connection with any American political body, I of course also have no right to vote, but I have the right to be concerned because this affects the entire world.
Yes, yes, you leftists... whatever Trump does
and his assistants...bringing an end to the knowledge of friends and the whole world
A sketch from a leftist house... of those who lost the elections
In the US…the people there voted!!! They are fed up with the Democrats
The fake ones...just like ours...and what's left for the wise?
The leftists do.. write prophecies of wrath!! Well, good!!!
prima facie….
..
Shallowness? When the president of the most powerful power in the world, thanks to its scientific superiority, decides to intervene and cut back just because they are educated and therefore think for themselves, unlike the herd of shallow people he leads.
It is not always possible to repeat all the arguments detailed in every article dealing with the subject. The links are there for that.
Sorry, I didn't expect to find such demagogic shallowness in the news.
I'll take comfort in the fact that this is the first time I've been exposed to this from you.
Amlak: I voted for Harris, he didn't succeed, now I'm complaining
It is sad and disgusting that the government of the most important country in the world has decided to destroy the scientific achievements of centuries.
I was disappointed to read an inflammatory political article on a site I thought was about science and technology.
This is a lie only among those who want to continue to profit from oil at the expense of all of our lives. Theirs too, but they refuse to understand.
Maybe it's a shame?
Maybe a slightly more in-depth analysis of government investments rather than political opinions?!
Global warming is a lie, abortion is murder and immoral, research should only be invested in medicine, AI, and the space industry for the next 20 years.
Even if we go with your idea that there is no such intention, there are results on the ground.
Halting research won't change the fact that transgender people exist and that treatments need to be developed for them. It will only make them victims of fundamentalist incitement.
By the way, stopping climate research won't stop the climate crisis either.
Budgets for real scientific research will be doubled, but not for gender studies and gender analysis, nor for racial discrimination, nor for progressivism.
Speculation, fear, and engineering gratitude are not a plan of action. The new Trump administration has no intention of harming science and research. It has an intention to stop the exclusion of Jewish Indians and white Americans. It also intends to support research that serves the American public. A $152 million study of the behavior of monkeys who underwent sex reassignment surgery will not receive any more funding, and investment in transgender drugs will also decrease. There are many areas in which investment will increase.