Meghan Gallo has written thousands of words in grants and publications, often in complex scientific terms. But in a minute-long video recently posted on Instagram, the postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University keeps things short and simple, offering bite-sized wisdom about her research on brain plasticity.
It’s part of a social-media campaign Gallo helped launch to pull back the veil on the people behind the microscopes, with the goal of translating research for everyday Americans.
Support for science — from the public and politicians on either side of the aisle — has scarcely wavered in the past few decades. But over the past two months, as federal research grants have been yanked, paused, capped, and canceled by the Trump administration, many scientists fear they’ve taken those subsidies for granted.
“Maybe the public doesn’t know as much about what the ongoing cutting-edge research looks like, and how public funding helps it,” Gallo said. “As a scientist, I can say I’m a big part of the problem, because I spend most of my days in a lab, in a closet-sized room on a microscope.”
Gallo is part of a budding movement of researchers who are devoting fresh attention to scientific communication — not as a separate field, but as essentially integrated with discovery. They’re collecting anecdotes on the impacts of cuts, building social-media followings, advocating in news outlets and legislatures, and talking plainly with nonacademic friends about why research matters.
The Trump-driven financial uncertainty has already forced colleges to freeze hiring and reduce graduate admissions, and it’s sown confusion and concern about the future of the research enterprise. A renewed focus on engagement, some scientists say, is urgent — and overdue.
‘Why Are We Not Ready?’
The argument against funding cuts should be simple, scientists told The Chronicle: Research is a great investment. Roughly $37 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health supported nearly $95 billion in economic activity and more than 407,000 jobs in 2024, according to a recent United for Medical Research report. That means every dollar of NIH funding generated $2.56.
Those big numbers may not mean much to the broader population of taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Many scientists might be hesitant to speak out or lobby lawmakers, feeling that science shouldn’t veer into politics. In fact, the field has traditionally prioritized talking about the work internally, said Ticora V. Jones, chief science officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But researchers should help connect the dots between their findings, people’s lived experiences, and the greater good — without being condescending, Jones said. Those “bigger conversations” must happen before it’s too late, she added.
“You don’t just sew things up after a chainsaw has been through them,” said Jones, who until 2023 was the chief scientist at the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, which has been gutted by mass layoffs.
Labor unions representing researchers — many of which formed in the past few years amid a surge in collective bargaining across higher ed — have helped drive awareness-building in recent weeks. Campus-based unions hosted many of the “Stand Up for Science” events that took place nationwide last month.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (which is not a labor union) began preparing for potential cutbacks before Trump was even elected to a second term. The advocacy group, which says it represents 17,000 researchers through its Science Network, is gathering testimonials, raising money for a science emergency fund, and supporting efforts to engage lawmakers and the news media.
“When science is sidelined, people get hurt,” said Melissa Varga, the Science Network’s senior manager. “This is not just about throwing millions of dollars away on potential scientific research funding, it’s about science for the public good.”
Rosa Lafer-Sousa, a member of NIH Fellows United labor union who spoke with The Chronicle in her personal capacity, is circulating surveys to document how cuts affect patients, early-career researchers, and labs. She’s hosted workshops training NIH-funded researchers to call elected officials and get comfortable with advocacy.
“What it’s really gonna take is a massive, coordinated, disciplined organizing to actually resist,” she said. “Really, that should have started a while ago. … Why are we not ready for this moment?”
‘This Is Not a Drill’
Jeremy Berg feels he’s in a unique position to speak out more than researchers whose funding is in jeopardy. He was formerly the editor in chief of Science and led the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011.
“This is not a drill,” said Berg, who is an associate senior vice chancellor and professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine but said he was not speaking on behalf of the institution. “It’s the real thing. It’s pretty scary.”
He fires off relentless messages every day to reach as broad an audience as possible — from regular posts on Bluesky, where he’s accrued more than 18,000 followers, to conversations with journalists at right-leaning outlets like Fox News. He encouraged others to “keep taking shots on goal” but be mindful about their strategy in doing so. Researchers should emphasize the consequences for everyday Americans and college-town economies, not just scientists’ jobs and salaries.
“I would much rather make that argument than the, ‘I’m a Harvard professor, I’ve been funded my whole career, and now my grant isn’t being funded and I’m really angry,’” he said. “That’s just not super compelling.”
Nick Wong, a Ph.D. candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, has been grappling with how to get his message across as he frets over the future of his funding. One idea he plans to pursue is coordinating community science events and securing coverage in local news stations.
Wong, who studies ecology at a Carnegie Science lab in Baltimore, has also made a point to talk with friends and family who voted for Trump about the administration’s sweeping cuts. “The divide only gets bigger if we don’t talk to people who disagree with us,” he said.
Misconceptions and distrust in science is “in part our own fault. We just stopped engaging with people. We stopped being an educational service,” Wong added. “People need to understand the work that we do and why it’s important, and why it’s cool. Not just why it’s cool, but how it improves their lives.”
Wong’s labmate, Drea Darby, suggested tapping into the “America first” rhetoric espoused by Trump and his allies. She worries the country could lose its footing as a global research leader if the government takes a sledgehammer to its longstanding investment in science.
Others who spoke with The Chronicle shared fears of an impending “brain drain.” One French university launched a “Safe Space for Science” program and reportedly lured away at least 40 scientists from top research institutions in the United States. A handful of well-known academics have already announced departures to Canada. And when Nature polled its scientist readers, three-quarters of respondents said they’re considering looking for jobs abroad.
“We’re going to be left behind,” Darby said. “I don’t know how America’s going to be first in anything if they cut research.”
Such concerns are looming over Darby’s everyday work. She can often be found hunched over a lab table, infecting fruit flies to test the microbiomes in their guts. During a recent phone interview, a light tap-tapping noise was audible in the background as she transferred flies to fresh vials.
“A lot of the drugs that are out there have come from basic research on plants and animals that people have never heard of,” she said.
The funding uncertainty compounds existing challenges for Darby, who spoke of underrepresentation and barriers for first-generation college graduates and Black women scientists like herself. Women and Black researchers are less likely to hold multiple NIH grants, and research topics proposed by Black scientists are less likely to receive funding.
Darby decided not to apply for federal funding this cycle. When she does apply later this year, she’ll avoid diversity-earmarked grants, since those are now in flux.
Eventually, Darby hopes to open a lab to continue her work and help expand opportunities for minority scientists. For now, she’s got to figure out how to tell the world why any of that matters.
