How to Fix Science

The federal funding system for scientific research in the U.S. needs reform

- BY DAN VERGANO

MICHAEL GREEN HADN'T PLANNED TO START his scientific career by confronting the head of the National Institutes of Health. But his research funding was unexpectedly stalled at the science Goliath, and its chief, the health economist and Trump administration appointee Jay Bhattacharya, was taking questions.

On the February 26 episode of the science podcast Why Should I Trust You?, the head of the federal biomedical institution was giving a “message to early-career researchers” and fielding their queries. Green asked via recorded message why his NIH grant—funding, first awarded in 2024, to investigate the reasons sick people don’t seek medical care—was now held up. His grant officer had reached out last July, giving him a week to remove “any DEI language” from the project. Green, then a 26-year-old Ph.D. student at Duke University, didn’t know what that meant—and his grant officer couldn't tell him.

He tried removing the word “Black” from his proposal, as well as links to studies showing that many Black patients felt discriminated against in doctor’s offices. But four months later, he still was waiting. “I went into this thinking, ‘There’s a chance that [Bhattacharya] hears this and then just decides to terminate the project, and that’ll be a disaster,’” Green says. But he wanted clarity on his future.

With the grant portion of his salary for 2026 in limbo, Green, who graduated from his Ph.D. program last December, was bartending without health insurance or better job prospects. He is not the only one facing uncertainty. For many scientists working during the second Trump administration, the old rules have changed.