The Muscle and the Heartbeat of American Innovation Is at Risk: Time to Realign Our Priorities

By Dr. Ayo Olufade

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is not just a federal agency; it is the driving force behind American discovery. For 75 years, NSF has been the quiet architect behind the significant technological and scientific breakthroughs that transformed our economy, strengthened national security, and elevated the global prestige of American science. From funding the early internet infrastructure to nurturing research that led to life-saving mRNA vaccines, NSF's role is foundational. The economic and security implications of its work are significant and cannot be overstated. However, today, as the agency should be honored for its legacy, it is instead being systematically dismantled—an erosion with consequences far beyond the laboratory. The time to act is now before it is too late.

In the first episode of my series, "Science Is Only as Strong as the People Behind It and People Behind NSF," I spoke with Dr. Adriana Bankston, a policy fellow in the U.S. House of Representatives and a longtime advocate for federally funded research. Together, we explored how political headwinds, ideological battles, and fiscal retrenchment are jeopardizing not only the NSF but also the people who power scientific progress. These individuals, including early-career researchers who bring fresh perspectives, program officers who guide and fund research, and mentors who share their knowledge and experience, are the backbone of our entire innovative ecosystem.

This is no exaggeration. The NSF is awarding new grants at the slowest pace in 35 years (Bhatia et al., 2025), a significant contraction that affects all major scientific fields. More than 1,500 grants have been terminated in 2025 alone, disproportionately affecting scientists from historically marginalized groups (Science, 2025). Programs like the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), INCLUDES, and EPSCoR—designed to nurture the "missing millions" of untapped scientific talents—have been gutted. The message is unmistakable: diversity, equity, and long-term innovation are no longer priorities of this administration but collateral damage in a broader political agenda.

The GRFP is particularly emblematic due to what is at stake. Launched in 1952, the GRFP has supported 75,000 alumni, including 50 Nobel Prize winners and Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google. GRFP stands as the nation's premier pipeline mechanism for STEM graduate students, offering them autonomy, flexibility, and the ability to pursue high-risk, high-reward research. However, this year, the number of fellowships has been slashed by more than half. Institutions like Harvard have seen their GRFP funding entirely canceled, and the National Science Board has floated proposals to privatize fellowships through corporate naming rights. This idea raises fundamental questions about academic freedom and long-term public benefit (Mervis, 2025).

As former GRFP Director Gisèle Muller-Parker emphasized in the Mervis article, these moves "make absolutely no sense." Dismantling GRFP would impede the nation's ability to sustain a diverse, forward-looking STEM workforce. The human toll is already being felt. Bailey Bowcutt, a current GRFP fellow at Harvard, captured the existential uncertainty facing many young scientists: "It leaves me asking where I fit into science." Such demoralization is not just anecdotal; it signals a slow-motion hollowing out of our scientific talent pipeline.

Equally alarming is the loss of institutional expertise. Layoffs at NSF have targeted rotating scientists and program officers, the strategic curators of our national research portfolio.

These are not bureaucrats shuffling paperwork; they are seasoned experts who cultivate emerging fields, mentor young scientists, and provide the critical peer review that ensures scientific excellence. As Dr. Bankston put it, "You can throw money at people, but if you do not treat them well, science does not thrive." In an innovative economy, human capital is our most irreplaceable resource.

Critics argue that fiscal discipline requires painful choices and that private capital can fill the void left by government retrenchment. However, history proves otherwise. The private sector's R&D overwhelmingly prioritizes near-term, low-risk projects with clear commercial benefits. It was the NSF's patient, long-term investment that made Google possible, nurtured the nascent field of artificial intelligence, and enabled Nobel Prize-winning discoveries, such as the detection of gravitational waves (Tucker, 2025). As Bina Venkataraman trenchantly observed, "Do not count on the free market to fix what Trump and DOGE will destroy" (Venkataraman, 2025).

Recent analysis from Science magazine further reveals that the NSF terminations disproportionately affect scientists from underrepresented groups. Of the 1,500 canceled grants, 58% were led by women, 17% by Black scientists, and a substantial number by principal investigators (PIs) with disabilities (Science, 2025). Programs like the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)—long considered pillars of equity and inclusion—have been gutted. These terminations not only erase years of community-engaged research but also send a chilling message to aspiring scientists that their place in the scientific ecosystem is conditional, expendable, and subject to political negotiation.

Budget hawks contend that NSF's DEI-related initiatives have politicized the agency's mission, claiming that such programs compromise scientific rigor. However, the empirical record demonstrates that these initiatives have broadened participation without sacrificing scientific merit. DEI initiatives at the NSF have expanded the talent pool and diversified the questions science seeks to answer—an essential ingredient for robust, innovative research. Cutting them does not purify science; it weakens it.

This is not about partisan ideology; it is about safeguarding national security, economic resilience, and America's competitive edge. A bipartisan coalition is now rallying to the NSF's defense. Senators Moran and Young, alongside Representatives Rogers and Stevens, have publicly rejected the administration's proposed 57% budget cut. Thirteen former NSF directors from both Democratic and Republican administrations have issued a rare joint letter urging Congress to restore the agency's mission, emphasizing that protecting the NSF is not a partisan issue—it is a patriotic one. The NSF's mission is not only critical but also vital to our nation's future.

The stakes are nothing short of existential. We risk losing a generation of talent—the thinkers, builders, and discoverers who will solve tomorrow's most pressing challenges. We risk ceding leadership in science and technology to other nations. Moreover, we risk eroding public trust in the scientific enterprise itself. The decisions we make today will shape the future of our children and grandchildren.

As an educator in STEAM education and father of daughters, this is not abstract to me. I recall one moment clearly: a young Black girl in one of my classrooms, wide-eyed, declaring she wanted to become a scientist after learning about Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett's groundbreaking work on COVID-19 vaccines. What message do we send to her and the future engineers, scientists, researchers, mathematicians, creative artists, computer scientists, technologists, inventors, problem solvers, and innovators if we allow the dismantling of the very programs designed to support their dreams?

It is never too late to change course. So, in moving forward, how do we effect change and measure success? We cannot measure success in reinvesting in the NSF in slogans or headlines. We can effect change by beginning with advocacy, policy shifts, and a collective commitment. We can act by advocating for better funding policies, ensuring transparency in funding distributions, or championing STEAM education and careers. Additionally, we must measure real success not only by what we accomplish but also by appreciating the human being behind the science or policy who works hard. Success can also be measured by:

• Funding Allocation

  
  

• Research Output

  
  

• STEAM Diversity & Inclusion

  
  

• Economic & Technological Advancement

  
  

• Public Trust & Engagement

  
  

Additionally, real success can be reflected in metrics that we rigorously track in expanded patents, a revitalized and more diverse STEM workforce, higher GDP growth fueled by innovation, and restored leadership in global science and technology.

Furthermore, short-term advocacy is not enough. We need sustained and vigilant commitment from educators, policymakers, scientists, and public servants, such as Dr. Adriana Bankston, to secure the future we all desire for the next generation of problem solvers and innovators. This commitment should continue through research and innovation fueled by sustained federal funding. Protecting NSF is not just about dollars and cents; it is about keeping America's promise alive.

As an educator, researcher, and advocate, I urge faculty, university administrators, policymakers, and our national, state, and local leaders, as well as all our stakeholders, not to scale back on the vision of Vannevar Bush, who advocated for federal support for scientific research following World War II. Embed NSF's storied legacy into your curriculum. Promote public Science and the benefits of federally funded research. Engage your students in advocacy and encourage them to take action. Contact your elected officials. Insist on preserving merit-based, inclusive, and peer-reviewed research and shielding it from political interference.

References:

·       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

·       Mervis, J. (2025, May 30). Will NSF's flagship training program survive under Trump? Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/will-nsf-s-flagship-training-program-survive-under-trump

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

·       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

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