By Kara Grace Hess, Features Editor and Noelle Worley, Staff Writer
It was an otherwise normal Wednesday on Jan. 29 for the science department when Dan Burden, professor of analytical chemistry and researcher, received a harrowing email from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Burden has been studying ion channels with his wife and co-principal investigator Lisa Burden, assistant professor of biochemistry. They are trying to adapt a molecule to operate as a nanoscale valve in a cell. If successful, this research could be innovative for many different kinds of pharmaceutical medications, including cancer treatment. Their grants were approved before this year’s presidential election, so they anticipated being able to continue for a couple of years.
Other scientists nationwide, like the Burdens, received an email from the director of NSF saying that the grant money for their research had been frozen.
The number of grants offered nationally since Trump took office has decreased by 50 percent when compared to the grants offered this same time last year. From February to March of 2024, 1707 grants were given. This year, only 919 grants have been given out. The total funds given have been reduced by $400 million.
Even so, the director of NSF says that “their priorities have not changed,” as reported by Science Insider. The budget and finance office may be responsible for limiting grant offers, as they sign off on them.
Further, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a big player in the world’s biomedical research, has eliminated, paused or delayed grant funding by order of the Trump Administration. Usually, with its $47 billion budget, 80 percent goes to grants. There is a current court case with 16 states suing to restore that funding and reevaluate the application review process. The American Civil Liberties group and others also sued this month.
Less than 36 hours after the first email, the order was recalled just as quickly as it had gone out, and funds for the Burdens’ research could be used again. For now, it appears their research can go on as promised, but they still have doubts.
“I’ve got some time, but my research grant funding approval won’t last beyond the Trump administration,” Dan Burden said.
The Burdens also hire undergraduate students to assist with their research over the summer at the college and teach practical laboratory skills. Additionally, recent alumni, called post-baccs, are often hired to work in the lab for a year to assist with the research process. Given the current political climate, Dan Burden is unsure whether he has the grant security to hire assistants.
Wheaton researchers have been less affected by the freezes and cuts than larger, private research institutions such as Vanderbilt and other Ivy League schools. The college generally prioritizes being a teaching-focused school more than a research one, which means that Wheaton is not as dependent on profits from research overhead. Still, some part-time professors rely partially on outside funding for their income.
Allison Ruark, assistant professor of public health, is a consultant for ongoing research on couples living with HIV in Malawi — a project formerly funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since 2024, her position has been reduced by 25 percent following college budget and faculty cuts, which require her to supplement her salary by taking consulting positions like this. As a social epidemiologist, she has been on numerous projects funded by USAID and the National Institute of Health, and expects funding for global health projects to be severely reduced, given the significant cuts since Jan. 20.
“I can’t think of a comparable example in recent history in which a whole sector has been shut down, like this,” she said. “When we shut down research mid-project, we’re losing work that’s already been done, and it’s going to take years to restart and reestablish research.”
Ruark referenced clinical trials whose subjects were abandoned halfway through research studies, with some participants still having experimental drugs or medical devices in their bodies. Scientists around the globe are confused about the Trump administration’s motive behind all the cuts, Ruark says. Many researchers have since sued the NIH because of the unethical treatment of people in medical trials that had been promised reliable funding.
“All of public health research has a goal of equity, which just means equitably getting resources to people who need it,” Ruark said. Over 2,000 doctors, scientists and health professionals conveyed similar frustrations with the “Trump Administration’s dismantling of research funding” in a public statement on March 31 addressed to “the American people.”
Cuts in funding have also dramatically changed the job landscape for recent alumni looking to work in science. Additionally, Burden said he spoke to current STEM students whose acceptance to elite graduate schools is in question because of funding insecurity. Andrew Luhmann, associate professor and department chair of geology, said some students who applied to graduate school or internship opportunities have received notifications that those positions are no longer available because of dramatically decreased support by NIH and NSF.
“These cuts are preventing students from pursuing STEM opportunities, and this will discourage some from pursuing STEM careers,” Luhmann said.
Despite the unanticipated tumult in usually reliable career paths, Ruark encourages students not to give in to conflicts or live as if there is no hope. “The kingdom of God is at work in all kinds of ways, including through research trials,” Ruark said. “I want the church to affirm members of the body of Christ with their various gifts, including science.”
