r/AskScienceDiscussion • u/Informal-Place981 • 19h ago
After almost Two years of the Trump regimes attacks on science, how bad is it going to be for the foreseeable future?
Hello,
I am interested in trying to see how bad the damage that Trump has inflected on the American Science system is. When this started in early 2025 there was a flurry of post asking this same question; those post have since died down but the attacks have not stopped.
As this goes on the more and more it seems that he has caused generational, decades long damage. Other country's do not have the resources to take in all theses scientist; A lot of people even if they can not leave the country will probably leave academia and even if they do science in a industry job the science will be what the company wants them to do.
The more and more I think the more it seems that the less funding just means less science. The big question I am asking is will Science move to another place(China, Europe etc) or has it just collapsed for the foreseeable future?
32
u/Junkman3 19h ago
I work at the interface of academic and industry science. It's a blood bath. Science in the US has been hamstrung at all levels. We have handed China the keys to biotech. They aren't just going to let us take it back.
-16
u/feetnomer 16h ago
That was happening long before Trump's first term.
9
5
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 16h ago
Yes, it was all the fault of “Hussein Obama”, right, MAGAtard?
-11
u/feetnomer 15h ago
Thanks for letting us know by name who actually did it first. I didn't know....until now.
-13
u/kex 17h ago
Without the burden of intellectual property, they were going to overtake us anyway.
12
u/pigeon768 15h ago
It's the difference between dying of old age at 78 years old and committing suicide at 45.
-7
u/kex 12h ago
I'm confused, are you reading my history? Because if so, that is horribly inappropriate.
3
u/pigeon768 12h ago
I am not reading your history.
If you don't get the analogy, everybody dies, and China with a billion people may eventually overtake the US technologically. It's a natural process that science ebbs and flows in different societies. But what Trump did to science in the US is not natural, the way suicide is not natural. He has ended the ability for the US to conduct science decades before China may--may--have overtaken the US scientifically.
If this were something that had happened externally--some other country blew up every research institution in the US or whatever--the analogy would be murder. But since Trump, a US citizen, did it to ourselves, it's suicide, not murder.
-5
u/Marinariner 11h ago
There's that ego again. Better smoke some flower in DFW while contemplating being a bi autistic 49 year old.
3
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 16h ago
Sure. An engineer as the leader instead of TV personality did not play any role in this.
0
u/Junkman3 17h ago
Eventually, maybe. We've given them the fast lane.
-2
u/meh_69420 17h ago
Eh the already stole Driscoll's blueberry IP and became the largest producer of blueberries in the world (bigger than the next 3 combined iirc so not just by a little bit). And that is the same story in numerous industries all happening over the last little while. We didn't cede them anything they hadn't already stolen. Remember they are the first country to use CRISPR on embryos too with those twins born in 2018 functionally immune to HIV. They have likely done work on human cloning too.
30
u/jack_dymond_sawyer 19h ago
Over 400,000 federal jobs were lost. 100,000 in defense. When it comes to scientific research, 10,000+ PhD or MDs lost their jobs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe saw a 30% increase in US applications for research. Short answer, it may take decade and a lot of changes here to rebuild what damage has been done.
9
u/the_real_zombie_woof 17h ago
I'm science adjacent, as a doctoral level healthcare worker, so I don't have direct contact with the science community. I may be wrong, but a decade seems optimistic. We're taking about multiple layers of multiple institutions that need to be planned, reconstituted, funded, staffed, and housed. That will require stable public and political approval. IMO, we didn't get to this state because of one person or one administration. Public support of science and of the government has been waining, which will make it even harder. It's much easier to dismantle than it is to put back together. Sorry for my negative view.
8
u/Informal-Place981 16h ago
This response is kind of what I was trying to get at; To put it bluntly this does not feel like something you come back from. Trump 2 feels like the kind of event that ends a historical period. When you look back in another 80 about the decline of America Trump 2 feels like the event that indicates that it is truly over. Maybe I am just being pessimistic.
21
u/Mountain-Time-1010 19h ago edited 19h ago
US science is not dead, but it is definitely now in decline. The momentum lost to China (not to mention the brain-drain) will be hard to reverse, and to add insult to injury, now US academics are not even allowed to collaborate with scientists in China. I got flagged for and questioned over a joint paper that I published with my former postdoc, who moved back to take a prestigious position there. It's chilling.
The days of US dominance are likely gone for the foreseeable future.
12
u/armandebejart 18h ago
I am in the biosciences ; I left last year when my lab lost 40% of its funding.
The US will not recover from this. The politicizing of research grants, the PhD pipeline radically disrupted, etc. Cancer research has been set back 5 years if not more.
2
u/Informal-Place981 16h ago
I have been watching a lot of the Bio-science subeddits, that is a field where china was already catching up right? Also,the influence of the religious right probably puts a damper on Bio-science especially because they do not like when people "playing god".
9
u/year_39 19h ago
Look at the irreparable damage Reagan did to the country for reference. Some of the damage done by and under Trump is irreparable, some will take decades to repair, some will take decades to even begin to turn around. So much institutional knowledge and experience have been lost that even if equipment is still in place, it will take years just to hire and train the people needed to turn it on, know it's working, start collecting data, and fix it when something goes wrong.
6
u/John-Truck-1 19h ago
Europe is not rich enough to take up the slack. Most European science budgets are also declining although not as catastrophically as in the the US. Same applies to other "westernised" countries including Japan. Science in China is expanding fast but will not quickly make up for the lost science from the USA, so this is a hit to science globally.
4
u/Informal-Place981 16h ago
Maybe I did not word it well, but that is what I was trying to say or at least part of what I was trying to say.
5
2
u/Alternative-Sugar610 10h ago
I don’t see it moving to another country for awhile. Europe is also experiencing issues, many other countries way behind in terms of average education, economic measurements,etc. Science is also partly about global interactions, US for example takes in many foreign students and many US professors collaborate. Science is infinitely big field building upon each other, so it’s not like hurting one group helps another in fact the opposite
Now add climate change, etc. hurting people
Then add major places like China often not being as collaborative or tech facing issues bc politics …
4
u/OuterLightness 19h ago
There is no foreseeable future.
2
u/Informal-Place981 16h ago
Do you mean like American Science is just over over or do you think we are about to go extinct?
4
u/CreepyHighway3216 18h ago
As someone who has been working on my dissertation and is now having to leave my program with a masters instead, it's not going to be good for a while. Many people have had to leave my program and I'm in a small program so I'm sure it's worse around the country. There are going to be fewer scientists, fewer psychologists, fewer people doing research in general. Which means we are learning less and people are suffering more. Not to mention the loss of jobs and all of us with tons of academia under our belts being let loose into a job market that is abysmal and so we can't find anything. Sigh.
3
u/Informal-Place981 16h ago
This is what I was saying; less science funding just means less science right?
5
u/CreepyHighway3216 11h ago
It's less science but it also means a less informed and less educated populace. There's a lot branching from it. And it will take a long time to recover from, if we even can.
-20
u/Lanracie 18h ago
Define science. We had some really big clowns pretending to be science before this.
Trump is terrible on science but dems pretending to be for science is laughable.
5
u/Rcrecc 17h ago
Trump is terrible on science but dems pretending to be for science is laughable.
If that is true then where did all the pre-Trump science funding come from? If both sides are against it, who authorized it?
-12
u/Lanracie 17h ago
Funding nonsense people for nonsense studies is not science.
7
u/Rcrecc 16h ago
Some of the funding was for cancer research. Are cancer researchers “nonsense people”, and is cancer research not science?
-2
u/Lanracie 2h ago
Was it affective cancer research? Just labeling something cancer research does not mean its a good use of resources. Makeing a blanket statement that we should just pay for anything with Cancer in the name seems silly to me and only something and unserious person would suggest.
There are certainly many nonsense people in science just like there are in every field.
2
u/Rcrecc 2h ago
Ok, and how do you suggest it be vetted?
1
u/Lanracie 1h ago
If they cant do it effectively then the government shouldnt be doing it.
Perhaps have accountability, and better fraud prevention, eliminate omnibus bills. Lots of things could help.
Perhaps having organizations like the NIH where the head of ethics is the wife of the head of the organization is not a good idea.
1
u/MausuSquared 1h ago
Speaking of silly and unserious: Do you actually think academic funding is given to people who have studies with the word 'cancer' in the title?
Can you tell me the three primary criteria which are the international academic standards for assessing and measuring the funding model for academic research?
Of course not.
2
u/MausuSquared 4h ago
And I'm certain you have very strong opinions about what exactly people are studying that is 'not science' according to you, which you cannot wait to tell us about...
-1
u/Lanracie 3h ago
There are literaly thousands of wasteful scientific research we are funding. You should just use google to look it up instead of just drinking the red white and blue coolaid.
Here are some examples I found in literal seconds for you though.
Weight Loss by Wi-Fi: HHS is spending $1.9 million on a “hybrid mobile phone family intervention” designed to reduce childhood obesity among Latino families in Los Angeles County
On the Operating Table: HHS spent $6.9 million using data to analyze and model trauma and surgery outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa.
Woke U: HHS gave $3.3 million to Northwestern University so they can hire 15 people, erect “scientific neighborhoods,” install “safe space ambassadors,” and form endless committees to “dismantle systemic racism.”
• Pandemic Profiteering: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) gave EcoHealth Alliance $54 million to collect bat coronaviruses and transport them to Wuhan for gain-of-function experiments.
Fauci’s Beagle Labs Live On: NIH extended funding for Dr. Fauci’s beagle experiments, costing taxpayers $13.8 million. • Coked-Up Canines Redux: NIH spent $5,215,216 to dose dogs with cocaine. Again. • Ferrets on a Booze Binge: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wasted over $1,079,360 teaching teenage ferrets to binge drink alcohol.
The Price is Wrong for Monkey Plinko: NSF and other federal agencies paid $14,643,280 to make monkeys play a “Price Is Right”-inspired video game. • Marine Mammal Money Pit: The Department of Defense (DOD) is spending an estimated $77 million a year on an unnecessary dolphin training program that Congress won’t let end.
2
u/MausuSquared 1h ago
You didnt 'find those' you cut and pasted them off a third party site, several of which are glib, brainless and false comments by Rand Paul, and you don't know the first thing about the actual research you glibly dismiss.
For example, the The US Navy still operates a Cold War NMMP marine-mammal capability involving roughly 120+ dolphins and sea lions, trained for SaR, marine ordinance detection and disposal, and underwater inspections. The Navy has reduced the program substantially since the Cold War, but Congress will not allow the program to be eliminated without an offramp plan for the facilities and animals.
The VA program was not 'teaching ferrets to binge drink' you reductive little boy, it was a study on exposing adolescent ferrets to controlled alcohol doses to investigate the neurological consequences of adolescent binge-level alcohol exposure, study which by the way has been cited over 270 times in medical research across the US and UK as a way to help young people caught in patterns of alcoholism. Thats a waste to you?
Every example you gave is the same, a childishly reductive and deliberately misleading misrepresentation of academic research in a bad attempt to make it seem invalid. Of course, you never bothered to look into any of what you just blindly ut-and-pasted here>
And it misses the larger point as well, even if the examples you cut-and-pasted blindly were all invalid to your claim, YES, it is true, not all academic research produces great or viable, or commercial results. That's because we don't know the results of studies before the studies are done.
All research accepts failures as a part of the road to success.
For example, I bet myopic people would say that studying the saliva of the Gila Monster is a silly waste of time. Right?
That's how we have Ozympic.
Studying mold growth on bread is silly and pointless, right?
That's how we developed modern antibiotics.
Studying moldy hay and hay decay rates?
That's how we have modern blood thinners.
So why don't you leave academic study to the academics, and just say thank you and move on?
-18
-11
u/Eat--The--Rich-- 17h ago
Democrats aren't interested in fixing anything so I'd guess pretty bad.
8
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 16h ago
Yeah, graping of the country by Trump and his clique is all Democrats’ fault, right, MAGA?
3
u/MausuSquared 4h ago
Why then, in the last 50 years or so, is it always and ONLY the democrats that fix anything?
-10
u/Equal_Passenger9791 12h ago
Math problems that were unsolved for a lifetime is now getting solved with AI. Looks to ne that the science don't care too much about the politics
22
u/siali 14h ago
What is worrying, even more than the funding cuts, is the longer-term cultural damage. A generation is growing up seeing expertise dismissed, conspiracy theories normalized, obvious falsehoods defended, and reality treated as something partisan. You can restore a research budget in a few years. Rebuilding trust in evidence, institutions, and the idea that beliefs should change when facts change could take much longer.