The National Science Foundation (NSF) has indefinitely halted funding for new grant proposals, following a controversial policy implemented by its leadership. The policy directs internal staff to screen grant proposals for controversial topics or activities and steer them away from activities that might not further the agency’s priorities. Scientists who rely on NSF grants are stunned by this latest move. Their alarm deepens as the current fiscal year nears its end on September 30.
The agency, which has faced significant leadership turnover, including the resignation of Director Sethuraman Panchanathan last month, has reported receiving only about one-quarter of the funding Congress appropriated for the current fiscal year. That freeze led to approximately 1,040 grants being canceled. These grants would have funneled an additional $739 million into researchers and their institutions, further clogging up the already treacherous research landscape in the United States.
New Policy Draws Criticism
Last month’s announcement of the NSF’s new policy unleashed a storm of alarm among both researchers and agency staff. Many worry that the directive will undermine the merit review process that has been a cornerstone of NSF operations for decades. One NSF staffer commented on what the new policy means, saying,
“They are butchering the gold standard merit review process that was established at NSF over decades.”
This feeling seems to reflect a larger nervousness in the institution. NSF staffers have openly shared their concerns about the long-term health of NSF as a premier scientific institution. One staffer noted,
“This country’s status as the global leader in science and innovation is seemingly hanging by a thread at this point.”
One of the chief concerns with the new screening policy is what it could mean for creative, novel, truly groundbreaking research and innovation. This drastic shift would threaten the United States’ competitive advantage in science and technology.
Grant Terminations and Implications
To realize its funding freeze, NSF has canceled dozens of grants that were pending at different stages in the approval process. Among those impacted is a significant $12.5 million grant awarded to an initiative led by Colin Carlson, which involves around 50 researchers from multiple universities. This project aims to predict viruses that could pose pandemic threats, reflecting the critical need for funding in public health research.
The cancellation of collectively such grants beg the question of NSF’s dedication to the support of critical scientific pursuits. As most of the research community now finds themselves in a holding pattern, concern continues to mount over the cuts’ lasting impact on the research landscape. Researchers are concerned that the freeze will kill their labs and derail years of work on a project they’ve been developing.
Legal Considerations and Future Actions
Beyond immediate research worries, NSF’s funding freeze has broader implications. It raises legal obligations to bear under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. This simple act would require federal agencies to inform Congress when they stop or suspend the disbursement of existing grants. Unless NSF unfreezes its freeze, it will be forced to give advance notice to Congress around these actions.
Matthew Lawrence, an expert in administrative law, highlighted the scope of NSF’s obligations under the act, as a regulatory body. He pointed to potentially grave consequences for not enforcing federal rules. Those reports have resulted in at least one NSF program officer already making plans to resign. The reason behind their decision is their displeasure with the new rule.
We believe that researchers and staff at NSF share our deep concern about the future of NSF. They express concern over the erosion of the agency’s mission as a funding source. Many question whether the organization can adapt to these changes while still fostering an environment conducive to innovation and scientific discovery.
Leave a Reply