Science Is Only as Strong as the People Behind It

By Dr. Ayo Olufade

On the 75th Anniversary of the National Science Foundation (NSF), I sat down with Dr. Adriana Bankston for a special episode of my podcast, STEAM Sparks: Think STEAM Careers. What followed was more than a celebration and reflection on an institution - it was an urgent exploration of the invisible workforce behind discovery, the political fragility of scientific ecosystems, and the personal narratives that sustain hope in a crisis. This conversation marks the beginning of my series on the NSF and its lasting influence on science, innovation, the economy, national security, and our society.

About the Guest

Dr. Adriana Bankston advocates scientific research and innovation at the federal level. For close to a decade, she has worked to nurture U.S. competitiveness in science and technology through roles with universities, non-profits, and scientific societies. As the first-ever AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, she supports sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Previously, she was Principal Legislative Analyst with the University of California Federal Governmental Relations, advocating for the university's research priorities with Congress and federal agencies. She has also been a Policy and Advocacy Fellow with the Society for Neuroscience, contributed to policy entrepreneurship with the Federation of American Scientists, and led the Journal of Science Policy & Governance. Dr. Bankston earned her PhD in Biochemistry, Cell, and Developmental Biology from Emory University and has received numerous awards for her advocacy leadership.

We began by honoring the vision of Vannevar Bush, whose 1945 report, Science—The Endless Frontier, laid the philosophical groundwork for the NSF. Bush called for a system where basic research would be funded not by fleeting commercial interests but by public investment for the long-term good of society. In Bush's words, "Science can be effective in national welfare only as a team member." That vision led to the formation of NSF in 1950. The question is whether we are abandoning the vision and what it would take to sustain America's competitive edge?

The threats to our competitive edge are mounting at an alarming rate. NSF layoffs, the halving of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), and the resignation of NSF Director Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan signal more than internal restructuring. They mark a moment of peril for the soul of American innovation. These actions disrupt ongoing research and deter future scientists, potentially leading to a significant loss of talent and a decline in the pace of innovation. Dr. Bankston's words, "You can throw money at people, but if you do not treat them well, science does not thrive, "echo the urgent need for change. The situation is dire, and we must act now to protect our scientific future.

We spoke at length about the "people behind progress"—the program officers and administrators who act as strategic curators of our national research portfolio. These are not paper-pushers. They are what I call venture mentors for discovery. Their role is crucial in identifying and nurturing promising research. Without their seasoned judgment, ideas like the first web browser, the detection of gravitational waves, and even Google's core search algorithm may never have seen the light of day. NSF's early support of Sergey Brin and Larry Page's work at Stanford helped seed the Google search engine, one of the most influential technologies in modern life (National Science Foundation, 2004).

As Eric Tucker aptly wrote, "NSF acts as America's venture capital for the public good." His article "Moonshots, Not Pork" reminds us that LIGO, GPS, LASIK, and AI were all nurtured not by profit-driven corporations but through years of sustained NSF investment. This is a testament to the power of public investment in fostering innovation and should inspire hope for the future of science and technology. The NSF's role in promoting innovation is not just inspiring; it offers confidence and hope for what we can achieve when we invest in science. Just like Wall Street, science and innovation need certainty to thrive.

However, the ground is shifting. A recent New York Times analysis found that "The National Science Foundation is awarding new grants at the slowest pace in at least 35 years" (Bhatia, Cabreros, Elkeurti, & Singer, 2025). The steep declines in funding span nearly every scientific field—from biology and physics to computer science and STEM education—and jeopardize current research and future scientists' training. The impact of these funding cuts on the future of science is not just concerning, it's a call to action. We must recognize the responsibility we all share in protecting the future of science.

Some critics, particularly those concerned with budget deficits, argue that the current fiscal constraints require all agencies, including the NSF, to tighten their belts. They suggest that the private sector is better suited to drive innovation. However, private markets are less likely to fund the high-risk, long-term discoveries that public science, as Bina Venkataraman points out, 'Do not count on the free market to fix what President Trump and DOGE will destroy.'

We also discussed the deliberate defunding of equity-focused programs like GRFP, EPSCoR, and INCLUDES. These initiatives are not side projects; they are core infrastructure. They help ensure that science reflects the full diversity of America's talent pool. The deliberate defunding of these programs not only hampers the progress of underrepresented groups in science but also undermines the diversity and inclusivity of the scientific community. It was not just a financial adjustment when GRFP funding was cut in half, from approximately 2,000 awards annually to fewer than 1,000. As Bankston warned in the podcast, when GRFP funding was cut in half, it sent a bad signal to the young scientists that their future may not be valued as they had hoped.

This message comes as the U.S. is already experiencing a brain drain. Early-career researchers are being lured away to countries with stronger public science systems—or are leaving academia entirely. One scientist, she recounted, was forced to abandon a project midstream due to funding instability. Others have had offers rescinded at the last minute. In her words, "We are already losing them to other countries. We lose a whole generation of talent."

Recent reporting from Eric Tucker ("Common Ground: Defending the Next 75 Years of NSF") underscores this bipartisan reckoning. A broad coalition has emerged from federal courts to red-state universities to defend NSF's independence. Lawmakers from both parties—including Senators Todd Young, Jerry Moran, and Representatives Hal Rogers and Haley Stevens—have spoken out or legislated to defend the agency. Tucker notes that "defending NSF has become a patriotic act essential for America's geopolitical and economic future."

Even more compelling, Tucker describes a growing legal and institutional pushback against the restructuring. From federal employee unions and local governments to red and purple state universities, the resistance is bipartisan and grounded in the rule of law. Judges have granted injunctions against NSF layoffs. Lawsuits have been filed over abrupt policy shifts. Perhaps most remarkable was that 13 former NSF directors from Democratic and Republican administrations issued a joint letter opposing the proposed cuts.

Recent scientific analysis further reveals that the NSF terminations disproportionately affected scientists from underrepresented groups. Of the 1,500 canceled grants, 58% were led by women, 17% by Black scientists, and a significant number by PIs with disabilities (Science, 2025). Programs like LSAMP—long considered pillars of inclusion—have been gutted. These terminations erase years of community-engaged research and send a chilling message to aspiring scientists: their place in the scientific ecosystem is conditional, expendable, and politically negotiable.

In RIP American Innovation, Bina Venkataraman writes: "Do not count on the free market to fix what Trump and DOGE will destroy." She outlines how foundational technologies—mRNA vaccines, QR codes, and even Google—stemmed from public investments and long-term thinking. Her argument aligns with ours: transformative breakthroughs require long-term public investment and bipartisan commitment.

In his response, "Beyond the Eulogy," Tucker calls this moment a turning point for collective action. "The real tragedy," he writes, "is not just the dismantling of public science—the benefits of these investments are still unfolding. If we stop now, we sever the root of our future breakthroughs."

This national recognition also extended to Congress, and a bipartisan resolution was introduced by Reps. Don Beyer (D-VA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Bill Foster (D-IL), Scott Franklin (R-FL), and Haley Stevens (D-MI) celebrated the NSF's 75-year legacy. They reiterated the agency's indispensable role in economic development and national security. Rep. Beyer noted, "Supporting the NSF means supporting America's health, economy, and national security."

What gives Dr. Bankston hope—and what gives me hope—is that people are still showing up. Public servants in Congress are listening. Science educators, researchers, and innovators are adapting. Despite uncertainty, they are still applying for grants, joining labs, and stepping up and innovating. However, we cannot ask them to do it alone.

This episode reminded me that science policy is not abstract. It is personal. It is the conversation we must all have about where we place our priorities in this country. It is also the courage to advocate in public for my daughters and sons and the investment I am making in the future of the students I teach, the future generation. It is a daughter seeing someone who looks like her at the front of the room and imagining, "I can do that."

As Adriana said, "We are responsible for the people coming after us."

I conclude this writing as I begin by returning to our central theme: a commitment to people. Innovation does not happen in a vacuum. It occurs in well-funded, inclusive, and forward-thinking environments. Moreover, if we abandon those, we risk not just slowing innovation but losing the future entirely.

We do not just lose research. We lose the next generation of problem solvers.

Educators, especially in K–12 and CTE programs, can play a crucial role by highlighting publicly funded research in their curricula. Schools can invite scientists to speak, promote student research projects, and include science fair exhibitions as a vehicle for community engagement. Local leaders can make public science visible by attending those events and hearing directly from students. These actions build trust, spark imagination, and show young learners what is possible.

Let that be our call to action.

Call to Action: To protect American innovation, we must act together.

• Policymakers: Defend the independence and funding of the NSF.

• Educators: Make public science visible in your classrooms.

• Researchers: Keep advocating and mentoring.

• Citizens: Contact your representatives, share this message, and stand up for the future of science.

Together, we can protect the people behind discovery.

Stay tuned and listen to the upcoming Episode 1 of STEAM Sparks: Think STEAM Careers wherever you stream your podcasts.

#FundScience #ProtectNSF #STEAMeducation #PublicScience #SciencePolicy #NSF75 #ScienceIsPeople #InnovationMatters #ThinkSTEAM

Dr. Ayo Olufade hosts the STEAM Sparks: Think STEAM Careers podcast and advocates for inclusive STEM education and policy.

Embrace every challenge as an invitation to uncover your true potential. In the world of STEAM, curiosity isn't just a tool—it's the spark that ignites innovation, while passion carves the path to lasting impact. Your journey isn't just about mastering knowledge; it's about using your unique talents to illuminate the way for others. Dare to dream big, work with unwavering dedication, and let your light shine brilliantly. Choose STEAM Careers: Shape the Future, Design Your Destiny! ~ Dr. Ayo Olufade, PhD

References

1. Bhatia, A., Cabreros, I., Elkeurti, A., & Singer, E. (2025, May 22). Trump Has Cut Science Funding to Its Lowest Level in Decades. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/22/upshot/nsf-grants-trump-cuts.html

2. National Science Foundation. (2004). Google: From research project to world's most popular search engine. https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100660

3. Science. (2025). NSF's grant cuts fall heaviest on scientists from underrepresented groups. https://www.science.org/content/article/nsf-s-grant-cuts-fall-heaviest-scientists-underrepresented-groups

4. Tucker, E. (2025, May). Moonshots, Not Pork: How an Independent NSF Secured Our Future. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/moonshots-not-pork-how-independent-nsf-secured-our-future-eric-tucker

5. Tucker, E. (2025, May). Common Ground: Defending the Next 75 Years of NSF Is a Broad-Based Bipartisan Cause. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/common-ground-defending-next-75-years-nsf-eric-tucker

6. Tucker, E. (2025, May). Beyond the Eulogy: How RIP American Innovation Demands Collective Action. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-eulogy-how-rip-american-innovation-demands-eric-tucker

   Venkataraman, B. (2025, May 20). RIP American Innovation. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/20/rip-american-innovation-nsf-funding-cuts

7. U.S. House of Representatives. (2025). Bipartisan Delegation Commemorates National Science Foundation on its 75th Anniversary. https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7549