ArticleFrontiers in sociology2026
Early career researcher responses to 2025 United States federal science funding disruptions: a rapid-response pilot survey.
Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Scientific research drives national progress and innovation, but abrupt federal funding disruptions can destabilize scientific training at critical career stages and push talented researchers out of the workforce. Actions by the Trump administration in early 2025 sent shockwaves across academic research in the United States (U.S.). Federal science budgets were significantly reduced, hundreds of research grants were abruptly frozen or terminated, and politically appointed agency leaders overrode peer-reviewed funding decisions. Methods: We conducted pilot, rapid-response surveys to capture quotes, stories, and quantitative data in order to understand how these seismic policy shifts impacted early career researchers at American universities. Results: Our results showed that the majority of respondents were PhD students and early career researchers at varying stages of training, across a range of institutions and disciplines, including different types of sciences, with the largest percentage of respondents from the life sciences. Respondents described threats to the continuity of their research and careers due to funding cuts at major federal science agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and reported concerns about long-term job prospects and broader systemic issues in academia. Many respondents also indicated that these disruptions led them to consider leaving research altogether or pursuing scientific careers outside the U.S. Reported concerns spanned the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researcher levels. While universities provided some resources of support, respondents emphasized the need for Congress to protect, stabilize, and restore science funding. Discussion: Robust and sustained funding support for early career researchers is imperative for developing a strong science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce and maintaining American leadership in research and innovation. Overall, this pilot study provides early evidence that reductions in federal science funding may disrupt training pathways, erode confidence in research careers, and contribute to lasting losses from the future research workforce in the United States.
Indexed as
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.