As funding falters, young brain scientists rethink careers in research : Shots

A decade-long boom in brain science in the United States may be heading towards a bust.

According to the leaders Society of Neuroscience (SfN), which represents more than 37,000 researchers and clinicians.

If these scientists change fields or leave the country, SfN officials say, it could hamper the country's efforts to understand and treat brain diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, autism, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia.

“The US has been a world leader in research for decades, and now that leadership is under threat,” says John Morrisonprofessor at the University of California, Davis and president of SfN.

Morrison expects discussions about federal funding will likely figure prominently at the group's annual five-day meeting, which begins Saturday in San Diego and is expected to draw about 20,000 brain scientists.

“It's hard to avoid it because we're all directly affected by it,” Morrison says.

Science destroyed

In the months since President Trump took office, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have faced cuts, grant terminations and dramatic policy changes.

Federal health officials said the moves reflect efforts to reduce fraud and waste, end support for “woke” science and align research with the administration's priorities.

But this process worries young scientists such as Clara Zundelpostdoctoral fellow at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Zundel, who studies how environmental pollution affects the developing brain, currently receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. But consideration of an NIH grant that would have expanded its funding was delayed, she says.

As a result, she decided not to spend money on attending a neuroscience conference this year. Instead, she focuses on finding work in an increasingly narrow market.

“Many universities still have partial or even complete hiring freezes,” says Zundel. “So I’m just scared to think about how I’m going to take the next step.”

Zundel is not yet ready to give up her career plans.

“I really enjoy what I do and I want to keep doing what I do,” she says.

Still. “Talk to me in another three months,” she says, “and maybe I’ll change my mind.”

Other young researchers are even less sure, Morrison says.

“You hear things like, 'I've been preparing for this my whole life. Is this no longer the case? Is it really no longer possible to be the scientist I always wanted to be?” – he says. “A lot of people will just choose something else.”

Others may move their research to another country. And if funding cuts and uncertainty continue, Morrison says, the field of neuroscience could lose a generation of scientists.

Congressional funding, White House cuts

The NIH often awards five-year grants, and scientists tend to structure their research around that time frame. However, in recent months, many grants have been suspended or terminated prematurely.

“If you break a grant in the middle, the work you've already done will [may be] no use,” says Morrison.

He also disputes the administration's claim that it is saving taxpayers money.

In the long term, he said, the human and financial costs of cutting back on research would be enormous.

Take Alzheimer's disease. Research into the neurodegenerative disorder costs the federal government several billion dollars a year, Morrison said. But caring for people with the disease is much more expensive—hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And that cost, he says, will continue to rise until researchers find a better treatment or way to prevent the disease.

Morrison says this is an excellent example of the principle expressed by the late Mary Laskerphilanthropist and champion of medical research who famously said, “If you think research is expensive, try disease.”

This view is one reason brain science has long enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, says Diane LipscombProfessor at Brown University and Chairman of the Government and Public Affairs Committee of the Society for Neuroscience.

Second, since World War II, science has been a huge boost to the U.S. economy, she says. That's because government-funded research not only helps train future doctors and scientists, but also leads to the creation of new drugs and medical devices, university-based biotech companies, and patents on vaccines, cancer treatments, and even gene-editing technologies.

“I don't think we've ever spoken to anyone in [House] or the Senate, which disagrees with it,” Lipscomb says.

But the current round of cuts and disruptions comes from the executive branch, not Congress.

That's why neuroscientists are taking their case directly to the public. For example, the Society's website now includes links videos of scientists explaining the work they do and why it's important.

Lipscomb thinks that message will be heard. So when she talks to young scientists asking for career advice, she tries to convey an optimistic message.

“You just have to stay with what you love because everything will get better,” she says.

At least that's the hope.