ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
"The ship is going down and we are powerless":
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Historically, federal grant terminations have been rare and almost exclusively used in cases of misconduct. Under the current presidential administration, however, grant terminations have been common, with thousands of grants terminated across federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation. Although there have been scattered reports of the impact of these terminations on individual researchers, there has not yet been a systematic investigation of the impact on the overall scientific community. Methods: As part of a survey for a larger study, we asked researchers involved in T32 training programs how likely they would be to go into science if they were a graduate student now (Likert-type item) and how federal funding changes have affected them and their labs (open-ended). We report mean and standard deviation for the Likert-type item (1=Not at all likely, 5=Extremely likely), and we performed inductive thematic analysis to analyze the open-ended responses. Two independent raters coded responses, developed a codebook, and applied the codebook to all responses. The interrater reliability was high, κ=0.84. Results: Of the 490 researchers invited to participate in the survey, 277 (response rate 56.5%) completed it in full. Participants were relatively unlikely to choose to pursue science again, with only about one-third being somewhat or more likely to do so. Two hundred twenty-three people responded to the open-ended item about how federal funding changes have affected them. Coding resulted in 48 unique codes which fell into four themes: Impact on Finances, Impact on Trainees, Impact on Science, and Well-being. Participants described instability in their labs, concern for trainees' well-being and careers, concern about the future of the entire scientific enterprise, and negative impacts on their and others' well-being. Discussion: Our data demonstrates the significant, overwhelmingly negative impact of the changes in federal funding on researchers involved in training the next generation of scientists. Not only are they concerned about how they can continue to do the work they have dedicated their lives to, but they are also worried about the future of science in the United States. This latter concern stems not only from the decreasing availability and reliability of federal funding but also due to the impact all this is having on trainees' ability to do their research and find jobs where they can do science. These data are a call to action to our federal agencies, institutions, other agencies, and donors who understand the value of science to support researchers through these uncertain times. Otherwise, what has taken decades to build will be eliminated by a few anti-scientific decisions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.