sustainable health care
Credit: Kaz Tanaka/BigStock Photo ID: 2398044
How a government feud threatens decades of scientific progress
The Trump administration’s move to cut off $2.6 billion in federal research funding to Harvard has upended a vital engine of American science, with ripple effects that reach far beyond a single university.
Emily Badger, Aatish Bhatia, and Ethan Singer report for The New York Times.
In short:
- Nearly 900 grants supporting projects in neuroscience, opioid treatment, environmental health, and more were halted after the administration accused Harvard of failing to meet federal conditions tied to civil rights and research integrity.
- The funding freeze impacts long-term, high-risk science — including regenerative medicine, sleep studies, and cancer research — that typically isn’t pursued by industry due to cost or lack of near-term profit.
- These grants also train the next generation of scientists, sustain critical partnerships across institutions, and support research that underpins national policy, from trans fat bans to telehealth effectiveness.
Key quote:
“What we are losing is a future.”
— Glorian Sorensen, professor and co-director of a worker health and safety center at Harvard
Why this matters:
Shutting down nearly 900 research grants puts real-world public health, environmental policy, and future breakthroughs at risk. The consequences might not be seen today, but years from now, the impacts will be felt — in the therapies the world doesn't have, the gaps in climate data, the lives that could have been saved but weren't.Read more: An open letter from EPA staff to the American public
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Grandbrothers/BigStock Photo ID: 418204738
NIH staff revolt over deep cuts and political interference in research
A historic internal letter signed by over 300 National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists is challenging their director and the Trump administration over sweeping cuts, politicized grant terminations, and a perceived assault on science.
In short:
- NIH staff from across all 27 institutes signed the “Bethesda Declaration,” pushing back against policies they say have derailed the agency’s mission.
- Since January, thousands of grants have been revoked or denied, with funding reallocated to projects aligned with administration ideologies.
- While NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya claims to support dissent, staff say attempts to raise concerns have been ignored or punished, fostering a culture of fear.
Key quote:
“We’re just becoming a weapon of the state. They’re using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.”
— Anonymous NIH official
Why this matters:
At the National Institutes of Health, the old ideal of "science above politics" is getting dragged through the mud — and the scientists are done keeping quiet. When science is manipulated to fit an agenda, it’s not just researchers who suffer. Patients, parents, and public health officials are left in the dark, without trustworthy data to make life-or-death decisions. And when America’s leading science agency is cracking under political pressure, the impacts touch everything from cancer research to climate science.
Read more:
- NIH workers warn of illegal orders and suppressed science
- Trump administration halts or delays 2,500 NIH grants, disrupting medical research across the U.S.
- RFK Jr. wants to cut off top medical journals from government scientists
- Pennsylvania health advocates say Trump’s first 100 days in office have caused “100 harms” to local communities
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Babette Plana
Medical professionals adapt to health challenges posed by climate change
As climate change intensifies, doctors and other medical professionals are revamping treatments and training to address emerging health threats linked to environmental factors.
In short:
- Recent wildfires in Southern California have exposed residents to toxins from burning urban materials, raising concerns about long-term health effects.
- Medical institutions like the University of Southern California's CLIMA Center are integrating environmental data into patient care to better understand and treat climate-related health issues.
- Programs at universities such as the University of Colorado and Harvard are training "climate doctors" to lead in addressing health impacts of global warming.
Key quote:
"We need to train experts who can handle these situations, who can talk to the environment people, but also talk to the health people, but also talk to the public and policymakers on what to do in these situations."
— Dr. Rima Habre, Director of USC's CLIMA Center
Why this matters:
The health impacts of climate change — ranging from respiratory issues due to polluted air to the spread of vector-borne diseases — are becoming more prevalent. Medical professionals are also considering the environmental impact of treatments, and promoting "green prescribing" where lifestyle changes are recommended to benefit both patient health and the planet.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: NIH Image Gallery/Flickr
Public trust in science faces political challenges
Recent studies reveal that while overall public confidence in scientific institutions has slightly rebounded since the pandemic, political divisions have deepened, with Democrats exhibiting higher trust levels than Republicans.
In short:
- Despite initial concerns, research indicates that attacks on science during Trump's first term did not significantly erode public trust; some segments even reported increased confidence.
- Surveys show a widening partisan divide: Democrats' trust in science remains high, whereas Republican confidence has notably decreased, especially post-pandemic.
- Experts warn that political and economic entities are exploiting scientific topics, such as climate change, to advance their agendas, potentially fostering further mistrust.
Key quote:
"Republican politicians have successfully mobilized the conspiracy and resistance to scientists — and not just scientists, but government agencies that represent science and medicine and nutrition.”
— Rod Abhari, Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern University
Why this matters:
Rebuilding public trust in science will require a multifaceted approach. Scientists and health officials could benefit from transparent communication, acknowledging uncertainties while clearly conveying consensus where it exists. Efforts to depoliticize science are important in ensuring that research and policy decisions are guided by empirical evidence rather than partisan agendas.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: NIH Image Gallery/Flickr
Federal health data removals leave scientists scrambling
Researchers are racing to preserve critical federal health data as the Trump administration removes online access to key government databases, raising fears about future disruptions.
In short:
- The removal of federal health data under Trump’s executive orders is disrupting public research and leaving scientists anxious about future data access.
- Key databases, like FluView and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), were taken offline, sparking fears of data loss that could affect public health responses, including monitoring avian flu.
- Researchers are creating DIY solutions to preserve data, but they warn these efforts won’t replace the integrity of long-running, federally managed datasets.
Key quote:
“It’s that sort of disruption that is equally endangering our ability to do research and evaluation to understand what’s going on in our community.”
— Amy O’Hara, president of the Association of Public Data Users
Why this matters:
The consequences of the Trump administration's actions could hit hard. You can’t prepare for what you can’t track, and with avian flu and other threats on the horizon, losing access to this data could mean the difference between staying ahead — or getting blindsided.
Read More:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: NIH Image Gallery/Flickr
Trump’s funding cuts threaten the backbone of U.S. research
Trump’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cut targets “indirect costs,” the behind-the-scenes expenses that keep labs running, sparking a fierce backlash from universities and scientists who say it will cripple American innovation.
Carolyn Y. Johnson, Susan Svrluga, and Joel Achenbach report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- NIH’s proposal caps overhead funding at 15%, slashing support for lab maintenance, administrative staff and utilities.
- Universities warn that these cuts will weaken U.S. competitiveness in fields like biomedicine and artificial intelligence.
- Small research operations and public universities, which rely heavily on federal support, face the biggest risks.
Key quote:
“While the administration works to achieve this goal at NIH, a smart, targeted approach is needed to not hinder lifesaving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”
— Sen. Katie Boyd Britt (R-Alabama)
Why this matters:
The NIH cuts could hobble U.S. research at a time when global competitors are ramping up investments, potentially stalling breakthroughs in cancer research, AI and public health. It’s a reminder that research relies on the boring stuff — keeping the lights on, maintaining safety protocols, hiring grant administrators. Without that, the risk isn’t just fewer scientific breakthroughs, but a long-term brain drain.
Read more: Putting people at the center of medicine, research, and policy.
Keep reading...Show less
Popular
Credit: Andy Dean Photography/BigStock Photo ID: 362087353
CDC faces backlash for removing key public health data from its website
The CDC is under fire after abruptly removing crucial health data from its website, with top advisers demanding answers on why the information disappeared and when it will return.
In short:
- The CDC removed data on gender, vaccines, climate change, HIV and long COVID, citing compliance with Trump administration executive orders, sparking outrage among public health experts.
- A CDC advisory board sent a letter demanding explanations from acting director Susan Monarez, warning of "dire consequences" if the data isn’t restored.
- Some pages, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, have been reinstated, but concerns persist about transparency and the politicization of public health information.
Key quote:
“It’s more than a data set, it’s years and years of collecting data, analyzing data and putting it into a format that communities can use, literally, to extend their lives.”
— Daniel Dawes, health policy expert
Why this matters:
This isn’t just about missing web pages; it’s about trust. Public health relies on transparency. Without access to reliable data, doctors can’t make informed decisions, scientists can’t track trends and advocates are left fighting in the dark.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
