The landscape of brain science in the United States is shifting dramatically as ongoing disruptions in federal funding force many young researchers to reevaluate their career paths. Leaders of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN), which represents over 37,000 researchers and clinicians, warn that this trend could hinder vital efforts to understand and treat serious brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, and schizophrenia. According to John Morrison, president of SfN and a professor at the University of California, Davis, the United States has maintained a leadership role in research for decades, but that position is increasingly at risk.
Morrison anticipates that the topic of federal funding will dominate discussions at the SfN’s annual meeting, scheduled to begin on March 15, 2025, in San Diego. The event is expected to attract approximately 20,000 attendees, making it a crucial gathering for the neuroscience community. “It’s hard to escape, because we’re all being directly affected by it,” he stated.
Federal funding for brain research has experienced significant instability since the beginning of the current administration. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have faced cuts, grant cancellations, and abrupt policy changes. Officials from these agencies have attributed these measures to a desire to eliminate fraud, reduce what they term “woke” science, and ensure that research aligns with the administration’s priorities. For young scientists like Clara Zundel, a postdoctoral researcher at Wayne State University, this landscape is especially daunting.
Zundel, whose research focuses on the impact of pollution on the developing brain, currently receives funding from the NIH. However, she has faced delays in the consideration of a grant that could extend her funding. As a result, she chose not to attend this year’s neuroscience meeting and is instead concentrating on securing a job in a competitive market. “Many universities are still on partial or even full hiring freezes,” Zundel explained. “It’s just made it really scary to think how I’m going to take that next step.”
Despite these challenges, Zundel remains committed to her research. “I absolutely love what I do, and I want to continue doing what I do,” she said. Yet, she acknowledges that her outlook may change. “Talk to me in another three months, and I might change my mind.”
Morrison noted that many young researchers share Zundel’s uncertainty. He has heard sentiments like, “I’ve prepared my whole life for this. Is it gone now?” He expressed concern that if funding cuts and uncertainty continue, the field could lose a generation of promising scientists who may move abroad or pursue alternative careers.
Funding for research projects typically follows a five-year grant cycle, but recent months have seen numerous grants paused or terminated prematurely. Morrison highlighted the potential consequences of disrupting ongoing research, stating, “If you disrupt the grant in the middle, the work you’ve already done may be worthless.” He challenged the administration’s assertion that cutting research saves taxpayer money, arguing that the long-term human and financial costs could be significant.
For instance, research into Alzheimer’s disease alone costs the federal government billions annually, while the expenses associated with caring for individuals with the condition far exceed that amount, reaching into the hundreds of billions each year. Morrison emphasized the urgency of finding effective treatments or preventative measures to mitigate these rising costs. He referenced the late philanthropist Mary Lasker, who famously said, “If you think research is expensive, try disease,” underscoring the importance of continued investment in research.
Historically, brain science has garnered bipartisan support in Congress, according to Diane Lipscombe, a professor at Brown University and chair of government and public affairs at SfN. She pointed out that since World War II, publicly funded research has significantly contributed to the U.S. economy by training future medical professionals, developing new drugs and medical technologies, and fostering innovation in biotech. “I don’t think we’ve ever talked with anyone in the House or Senate who disagreed with that,” Lipscombe noted.
Despite the current funding challenges stemming from executive actions rather than congressional decisions, neuroscientists are advocating for their cause directly to the public. The SfN has launched initiatives to raise awareness, including a website featuring videos of scientists explaining their research and its significance.
In light of these challenges, Lipscombe encourages young scientists to remain optimistic. “You just have to stay with what you love because things will get better,” she advised. While the future of brain science may appear uncertain, the hope is that persistence and advocacy will ultimately lead to renewed support for essential research.
