Market Data 
This week, Science magazine reported a stunning development: the National Science Foundation (NSF) is eliminating all 37 of its research divisions, restructuring its grantmaking process, laying off staff and canceling over $1 billion in already-awarded grants. The changes follow the resignation of Director Sethuraman Panchanathan and coincide with a proposed 55% cut to the agency’s budget.
This is not reform. It is a dismantling.
The restructuring is widely seen as a response to political pressure from the executive branch, reflecting a broader effort to align federal science funding with emerging ideological priorities. In addition to diversity-related research, areas such as climate science, vaccination, HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 have all faced deep cuts. This shift has raised concerns within the scientific community about the potential narrowing of research scope and the implications for academic freedom and innovation. The economic consequences of restricting scientific inquiry on this scale could be far-reaching.
The Institution That Powers the U.S. Scientific Enterprise
For 75 years, the National Science Foundation has been the quiet backbone of American scientific progress. It funds a substantial share of all federally supported basic research outside the biomedical sphere, supporting discoveries in climate science, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum materials among many, many others. Its grants train graduate students, launch early-career faculty and sustain the open, reproducible research that fuels U.S. competitiveness. Yet even as science grows more essential, the federal share of basic research funding has been declining for decades—while private-sector investment has steadily increased.
Now, NSF is being taken apart at the institutional level.
The elimination of NSF’s divisions will remove an essential layer of subject-matter oversight from the grantmaking process. Division directors—scientists with deep expertise who currently approve nearly all funding decisions—will lose their authority. Instead, a new layer of review, governed by yet-unnamed officials, may vet proposals for ideological compliance.
This is not about streamlining bureaucracy. It is about centralizing control.
None of this is to deny that American science could benefit from change. Public research should serve the national interest. It should be transparent, open-access and aligned with real societal needs. Not every idea merits federal support. But there are better ways to modernize the research ecosystem—by improving data-sharing, strengthening accountability, developing special programs and expanding capacity—than by gutting trusted institutions and replacing them with opaque, politicized systems. We need reform, but not this kind.
Undercutting Science Undercuts the Economy
We also need to be clear about the costs of disinvestment. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas—hardly a partisan institution—finds that nondefense government R&D yields long-run economic returns of 150% to 300%, and accounts for roughly a quarter of American productivity growth since World War II. The authors, economists Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens, conclude bluntly:
Our findings therefore point to a misallocation of public capital, and substantial underinvestment in nondefense R&D.
There is nothing wasteful or elitist about public investment in science. On the contrary, it is one of the most reliable drivers of shared prosperity—benefiting not just institutions or industries, but society as a whole. Now is the time to expand that commitment, not withdraw from it.
A Looming Brain Drain Will Deepen The Crisis
And when that investment falters, the consequences are not abstract. They show up in lost talent, missed opportunities and growing scientific gaps. The U.S. has long enjoyed a strategic advantage in the global competition for scientific talent. But that advantage is eroding. The scientific journal Nature recently reported a surge in American scientists seeking jobs abroad, citing funding instability, political interference and lack of institutional support. That’s not just a brain drain—it’s a signal of systemic distress
The real crisis at the NSF is not inefficiency or ideological drift. It is the abandonment of a national commitment to independent science. That commitment made the U.S. a global leader in innovation, education and discovery. And now, at a moment of historic challenges—from pandemics and climate change to artificial intelligence and national security—we are pulling back.
The United States can and should improve how it funds science. We can do better on transparency, priority-setting and community impact. But those are debates for a functioning system. Right now, the entire science ecosystem itself is under threat.
The NSF doesn’t need to be dismantled. Its investments need to be deepened and directed toward long-term impact.
That means restoring its divisions, protecting peer review, rebuilding staff capacity and reaffirming its independence. It means increasing investment, not slashing it. And it means recognizing that science policy is not just about managing budgets—it is about shaping the future.
