In a recent Science article, it was revealed that the future of science funding by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) will involve only five major areas: (1) artificial intelligence, (2) quantum information science, (3) biotechnology, (4) nuclear energy, and (5) translational science. These selected fields are expected to become economic drivers, and the potential for economic advancement appears to be the primary motive of the current federal administration. However, throughout its 75 years of existence, the NSF has traditionally supported basic science research in a wide range of fields that do not align with the aforementioned areas or objectives. Going forward, it is unclear where scientists in other disciplines should seek funding support. Apparently, NSF no longer values the contributions made by scientists in fields like political science, anthropology, oceanography, geology, astrophysics, and others.
The NSF administration has also not indicated whether the education and training of future scientists are priorities. The National Science Board (NSB) released a statement on the NSF website titled “Winning the Race for the Future with the National Science Foundation,” in which they acknowledged that the United States does not lead the world in producing STEM doctoral recipients, publishing high-impact manuscripts, or releasing patents. They opined that the NSF is “running a 20th-century science and technology enterprise in a 21st-century world.” The NSB advocates for partnering federal agencies and national research laboratories with industry to increase economic benefits. The NSB also prioritizes using the NSF to “secure our national defense” and uses the term “Next Generation NSF” to describe the new direction that NSF should take. In the entire statement by NSB, there is no mention of the words “train”, “training”, “educate” or “education,” although they acknowledge the need to build a “robust STEM workforce.”
The question remains how a robust STEM workforce can be built without first educating the members of the population who will join the pool of STEM experts. It is important to note that the NSF webpage links to programs and opportunities under the Directorate for STEM Education (formerly the Directorate of Education and Human Resources) remain active and have upcoming deadlines, including a September 2025 deadline for the submission of Research Traineeship Program proposals. However, there is a caveat: there has been a funding freeze at the NSF until further notice, which might affect the relevance of any future awards.
What is of major concern is that the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES) has been eliminated by NSF. The EES division advanced access to STEM education through a variety of programs, such as the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP). LSAMP funded partnerships between academic institutions and other organizations with the aim of increasing the number of STEM degrees awarded to underrepresented populations (i.e., Black and African American, Hispanic and Latino, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander individuals). Currently, there is no trace of the EES division on the NSF website, erasing the years of dedication by many administrators, faculty, staff, and students who have been committed to the mission of broadening participation in STEM.
Furthermore, as a large number of research grants have been terminated by the NSF over the past 90 days, it is clear that scientists from underrepresented groups have fared the worst. Science recently reported that while women and minorities comprised a smaller percentage of NSF grants awarded prior to the reduction in force initiated by the current administration, the percentage of grants terminated disproportionately affected women and minorities, whereas white scientists were more likely to be spared.
The NSF's shift in funding priorities underscores a pivotal moment for U.S. scientific research, raising critical questions about the future support for diverse disciplines and the development of a robust STEM workforce. As traditionally supported fields face uncertainty, the scientific community must navigate these changes and advocate for a comprehensive strategy that balances economic goals with educational and equitable advancement. The absence of explicit commitments to education and diversity in the NSF's evolving agenda leaves much at stake, challenging stakeholders to redefine the path forward and ensure that innovation continues to thrive across all domains.