To the Editor:
Re “Trump Is Risking Edge U.S. Science Has in Research” (“Science Under Siege” series, front page, Nov. 2):
As a scientist and researcher, I commend The New York Times for outlining how the Trump administration is dismantling our nation’s scientific research enterprise. But the administration’s intent goes beyond thwarting research.
What President Trump and his right-wing ideologues want to do is destroy universities because they see them as threats to their extremist agenda. Everyone knows that knowledge is power, and authoritarians do not want an educated population because it is hard to manipulate, control and dominate.
A look at any authoritarian’s playbook will show attacks on academia to be one of the goals. Mr. Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, openly declared this strategy in a 2021 address to the National Conservative Conference, titled “The Universities Are the Enemy.” More specifically, Mr. Vance, echoing Richard M. Nixon’s comment during his presidency, declared that “the professors are the enemy.”
As one of the Trump administration’s enemies, do I need I say more?
Michael Hadjiargyrou Centerport, N.Y.
To the Editor:
The data cited throughout this article confirm what those of us in the research community have been witnessing for more than a year and a half: America’s global leadership in science, technology and medical progress is increasingly at stake. From disruptions to clinical studies to federal funding cuts to overreach by the Office of Management and Budget, our nation’s health, prosperity and security are on the chopping block.
That’s not what Americans want. Or deserve.
Our public opinion survey reveals that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say Congress should invest more taxpayer dollars to advance science and technology. More specifically, an even larger majority of Americans from across the political spectrum — 9 in 10 — say it is important for the United States to be a global leader in research that improves health.
By pausing, canceling or defunding research, or by putting political bureaucrats in charge of grants, we also risk America’s competitiveness.
A recent article in The Journal of Biochemistry outlines Japan’s Seventh Basic Plan, a five-year road map to expand funding, revitalize the country’s research ecosystem and increase its global leadership in science and technology. Those are the kinds of investments our own government should be making in science, technology and medical research, not dismantling it.
I urge lawmakers to listen to the American public, especially as the current continuing resolution funding our government expires on Dec. 11. We have an opportunity to invest in research and fully support scientists’ lifesaving work. Our health and that of future generations depend on it.
Russ Paulsen Arlington, Va. The writer is the president and chief executive of Research!America.
To the Editor:
We are at a pivotal moment for cancer research, with machine learning and A.I. unlocking biomedical breakthroughs that were unimaginable a decade ago. But the abrupt cancellation of thousands of federal research grants threatens to stop this hard-won momentum in its tracks.
We are pulling back funding exactly when we need to push forward most. Driven by an aging population, global cancer incidence is projected to reach 35 million cases annually by 2050. In the United States, cancer diagnoses just crossed two million a year, and the rates of several deadly cancers are rising among younger Americans.
Stabilizing the federal research funding pipeline is crucial. But in the meantime, the rest of us need to step up. While private philanthropy cannot replace the sheer scale of federal grants, agile funding can keep bold, early-stage science alive and prevent researchers from abandoning their lifesaving work.
We just need the resources to do it — and this shortfall is happening precisely as the leaders of the artificial intelligence boom are poised to come into historic wealth.
These engineers and founders know that real breakthroughs demand long horizons, massive data sets and a high tolerance for risk, the exact mind-set required to fund frontier oncology. As public science retreats, they have a brief, historic opportunity to deploy their capital toward solving humanity’s most complex biological problem. I hope they take it.
Ryan Schoenfeld New York The writer is the chief executive of the Mark Foundation for Cancer Research.
The post The Many Costs of Trump’s Attack on Science appeared first on New York Times.
