On April 24, every member of the independent board overseeing the National Science Foundation received an email from the Presidential Personnel Office. It informed them that, “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” their positions were “terminated, effective immediately.”
The National Science Foundation provides integral grant funding for universities, institutions, and scientists across the country.
The University of Nevada, Reno is no exception.
Lee Dyer, UNR professor of ecology, said he has consistently relied on funding from NSF since he began conducting research in the 1980’s. He said most basic scientific research in the U.S. — meaning it doesn’t have direct market applications — is funded by the NSF.
“Basic research has no outside influence from corporations or from politicians and this is why we have a board that oversees the National Science Foundation,” said Dyer. “The whole purpose of this board was to separate science that's funded by the federal government from politics.”
Dyer said the advisory board positions were held by scientists who were experts in their field, and they were intended to be insulated from outside influences.
“I think there are very clear reasons why this administration is cutting science and sees science as a threat to its agenda,” Dyer said.
Fellow scientist and UNR professor of limnology, Sudeep Chandra, served as a former rotating program manager in ecosystem science at NSF. He said the move to fire the board was overtly political, and he warns against the dangers of politicizing science.
“All of a sudden scientists today feel like they have to be a little more, like tip-toeing, around discrete words so they can try to get their proposals funded,” said Chandra.
Some of Chandra’s work surrounds the clarity of Lake Tahoe and watersheds in the Great Basin. He said now they are having to use wording like “weather extremes” instead of “climate change” to describe their research in order to have their proposals considered.
“I think that's a real danger right now is telling people in a democratic society what words they can or cannot use to help understand big challenges that affect our communities,” Chandra said.
He said although he does not know what the immediate impacts of the board firings will bring, this politicisation of science puts a lot more stress on scientists, stifles creativity and takes away from the process of scientific inquiry.
Jamie Voyles, a disease ecologist and professor at UNR, said the board firings don’t just impact scientists, but also affect everyone who benefits from scientific innovation in their everyday life.
She said scientific innovation has brought us everything from fresh produce at the grocery store to the GPS on a smartphone, and the phone itself.
“This isn't just about scientists. It's also about systems that keep people healthy, that keep food safe, that keep communities resilient, that keeps our environment clean,” Voyles said.
Voyles said she is not only concerned for the future of science, but also for the young researchers who may now be having second thoughts about studying in the U.S. and going into scientific fields.
“The skepticism associated with this means that we [as a country] are no longer the beacon of scientific innovation. Scientists are going and looking in other countries. Young researchers are questioning whether science is something that they want to pursue. All of those things are undermining the future of our country,” Voyles said.
