I offer the following as someone who is both a scientist and a person who is interested in pursuing a career in government: Over the past few years, I have watched the field I cherish—science, rooted in objectivity, curiosity, and integrity—become ensnared by the vice grip of political partisanship. The pursuit of truth has become overshadowed by narratives shaped by ideology rather than data. Political entanglement in the scientific realm hasn’t just obscured facts, it’s bred mistrust and disinformation—the antithesis of scientific discovery.
While both scientists and politicians influence public understanding, they do so differently. Scientists seek truth but often struggle to communicate in accessible terms. Conversely, politicians are effective communicators but aren’t always tethered to evidence. The resulting disconnect can fuel misunderstanding and deepen divides. An example: the debate around NIH budget cuts—not a clash of values, but perhaps a failure to understand one another.
Let’s talk numbers…
President Trump campaigned on the promise to curb national spending by eliminating what he deemed as “waste” to facilitate a smaller, more efficient government. In the era of inflation, I’m always looking for ways to save; a sentiment I’m sure many working Americans share. So, let’s break down the fiscal year of 2026 (FY2026) budget cuts.
In 2024, the federal government spent $6.75T, of which the National Institutes of Health accounted for a total of 0.7% of the total. In the FY2026 budget, the Trump administration cut the NIH budget by about 40%, which if effectuated, would save taxpayers nearly $18B. While this figure sounds impressive at first blush, compared to our total national FY2026 budget, it only represents a cut of around 1.5%. Meanwhile, the same proposal includes a 13% increase in defense spending, despite the existing U.S. military budget already exceeding that of the next ten countries combined.
The cost of defunding science
The federal government’s assault on science has begun to take a dramatic toll nationally. But let’s look at what this means for North Carolina; where science isn’t just an abstract benefit, but an economic engine. Prior to NIH cuts, the North Carolina life sciences industry generated $2.4 billion in state and local tax revenue annually. However, due to funding cuts, North Carolina lost over $1.2 billion in scientific funding and over 5,000 jobs. Some researchers estimate the state will lose nearly $659 million in new economic activity annually as a result.
Several prominent Ivy League, public, and private universities either admitted less students, rescinded offers, or paused admissions all together for the incoming 2025 class. Anecdotally, I’ve heard PhD students left to choose between joining labs they’re not interested in or dropping out of their programs altogether as labs are losing funding. We’re not just losing research dollars. We’re losing future scientists and, in turn, potential scientific breakthroughs as the next generation of scientists is being stymied.
The real disconnect: It’s not “wasteful” nor about “wokeness”
The FY2026 NIH cuts eliminate funding for what is termed “radical gender ideology” and “DEI expenditures.” Meanwhile, indirect costs—like keeping lab lights on, maintaining research infrastructure, and paying support staff—would be slashed from the traditional 30-60% down to 15%. The Trump administration argues the majority of taxpayer dollars designated for scientific research should go toward the direct advancement of science.
Here’s where the miscommunication lies:
As a taxpayer, I agree, the dollar amount I pay in taxes to fund science should go toward the direct advancement of science, not pushing any particular political ideology. As a scientist, however, I know that indirect costs are essential to scientific innovation. It’s impossible, for example, to run a freezer storing life-saving samples without electricity.
Moreover, collecting a diverse sample pool isn’t about advancing “woke ideology,” it’s good scientific practice. In fact, my job would be a lot easier if the human population was identical. However, biological differences, geographic factors, societal influences, even individual behaviors all have the potential to influence how diseases develop and treatment outcomes. If a medication isn’t tested across diverse groups, how can we trust it will work for everyone?
We’re actually on the same side
In spite of political differences, I believe most Americans—left, right, scientist, skeptic—want similar things: a strong economy, a healthy population, and the prudent use of taxpayer dollars. But we will not get there if we continue to talk past each other. We need to stop letting pride, fear, and bad communication hold scientific progress hostage. So, here’s my FY2026 proposal: let’s move forward by recognizing what is fact vs. ideology and come together—not as opponents but as citizens committed to solving problems. Science isn’t wasteful, it’s crucial. And the cost of cutting it too deeply may not show up on your next tax bill but perhaps your medical bill.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The cost of saving 1.5%: Our health )
Also on site :