For recent Masters graduate Aaron Weinberg, science has been a regular part of family conversation ever since his older sister’s decision to pursue research in college. When news of the potential science research budget cuts first hit his home, his family watched anxiously to see how greatly the cuts would impact Aaron’s sister’s occupational pursuits.
Aaron, who worked in a small lab over the summer, has stayed attentive to the news. He was worried that his position might get cut. Though he maintained his position, his sister’s company is having financial trouble due to the cuts. Aaron, who is already a very successful biomedical researcher, must now go into college facing a much higher dose of scientific competitiveness from his peers.
Today in The United States, scientific growth has stunted with the passing of many federal funding cuts to the sciences and social sciences. This reflects a broader right leaning ideological shift that deprioritizes scientific research.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) budget cut proposals serve as examples. These budget cuts have led to the termination of research grants and budget reductions of other agencies.[sno-infographic id=”17311″ align=”left”]
These funding cuts impact not only professional researchers and society, but also students looking to break into the science and tech industries. Kristina Gremski, the science research teacher at Masters, is concerned about the funding cuts because they have strongly impacted the number of students admitted to PhD or MD/PhD programs.
“Some universities completely rescinded offers of admissions, while others accepted much lower numbers than usual,” Gremski said. This decrease in offers will make science research in high school more competitive.
Weinberg said,“In this past application cycle, colleges have cut some of the kids that have gotten accepted into PhD and research programs.”
[Name redacted] ’26, a science research student at Masters said, “The funding cuts are definitely concerning for students’ college prospects. I have gone on college tours on which guides said that they are very worried for their internships.” She explained that without funding, labs are reluctant to take on students because of their general lack of experience.
Rajiv Ratan, a Masters School Board of Trustees member and Chief Executive Officer of Burke Neurological Institute, said, “The budget changes are coming about so quickly that institutions don’t have the opportunity to create a plan B or a plan C that could compensate for the loss of funding.” All of these initial, rapid changes are going to impact the ability to train new scientists.
“If we have fewer resources to do research, we can’t have high school and college students in our laboratories during the summer,” Ratan said. He also explained that bringing in interns as well as high school and undergraduate students is expensive, costing around $10,000 per person, because of the time it takes to train them.
Ratan explained the effects are enormous to students who are looking to go into science majors in college or who are participating in the science research program.
He added that the impact doesn’t stop at students. There are societal issues linked to the impact on students. If students aren’t getting science research experience, there will be a reduction in scientific advancements that can improve world health, the economy, and general knowledge, he said.
[Name redacted] worries that the funding cuts will mean that students will start studying only lucrative science topics, like AI, that haven’t been affected, instead of their true interests.
Another issue of concern that Gremski raised is that many NSF and NIH employees that review grant proposals have been laid off. This brings up the question of who will be reviewing new grant proposals moving forward.
Ratan also brought up the issue of scientific competition between countries. If these cuts are enacted other countries have plans to steal talent from the U.S. Competing countries are setting up funds to try to woo American scientists away from the U.S. to set up their labs elsewhere.
Finally, Ratan noted that China is investing a huge amount of research and is in a position to become the dominant force for innovation in the world. Still, he doesn’t think this is necessarily problematic.
Weinberg supported this idea, saying that he had no current plans to move to Europe for science. “The work that is going on in America is really interesting and while there is a lot of cool stuff going on worldwide, I think it is a lot more accessible here.”
It isn’t about who is number one, he said. The U.S. is unique due to its educational and political system which have always fostered innovation and the sciences. “It’s not clear to me that that type of innovation is going to thrive as well in other countries. So I think that it is important for the world that we continue to not only sustain, but build on the success,” Ratan said.
“The demand for great scientists is not going to diminish,” Ratan said. “It’s only going to increase. So I think we have to be creative in thinking how we’re going to figure out new ways to continue to feed this pipeline in a way that benefits not only society, but the students at Masters.”
What can students and parents do?
Firstly, the students and the community of Masters have a social responsibility to communicate to legislators and become politically engaged in order to defend scientific funding and the advancements that it facilitates, Ratan said.
Further, to ensure that Masters students continue to have the rich experiences that they have had in the past, it’s necessary to continue parent-driven philanthropic contributions in science, Ratan said. This creates resources that facilitate the ability of Master students to participate in the laboratories where there are going to be diminished resources.
What can administrators do?
The science community is exploring avenues to maintain research programs and opportunities. “It’s really about helping you guys find out whether this is a career that you might want to devote your life to,” Ratan said.
The school should look for foundations who will fund educational opportunities like internships during the summer to cover the cost that labs spend teaching students. Currently there is a strong commitment on the part of Laura Danforth and Christina Gremski to have Master students participate in laboratories around the metropolitan New York area.
Ratan said “It would be helpful if Masters could use its immense fundraising engine to develop funds to facilitate the ability of students at Masters to be able to have stipends that they can take to laboratories that they might participate in.”
How can students increase their marketability to get opportunities?
Aaron Weinberg recommended, “Students should get into research during high school because it is going to become harder in college so you would like to be more competitive at the high school level.”
Persistence: Gremski said, “Being very persistent is the way to succeed. Students have to write a lot of cold emails and not get discouraged when they don’t receive responses. I will also start encouraging students to just pick up the phone and cold call scientists.”
Increase Qualifications: Gremski said, “9th graders (or even younger students) should start learning how to code. We’re in the age of big data and a lot of great research can be done computationally. Computational research doesn’t require expensive lab supplies, so a high school student that knows how to code will have a much easier time getting a mentor for a research project.”
In a final remark, Ratan said, “I think the incipient changes could really have an adverse effect on what is arguably the crown jewel in the United States, and that is our ability to use the scientific method for innovation and discovery.”
