When the recent US federal government shutdown ended, some sectors quickly resumed normal operations. But for scientific research, the effects continue to unfold long after the government reopened its doors. Prior to the shutdown, federal agencies already faced tightening budgets, delayed appropriations, and shifting priorities. The shutdown amplified these problems, leaving researchers across the country to navigate prolonged uncertainty.
We work at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, where approximately 50 percent of the institute’s annual budget is derived from federal grants, mainly from the National Institutes of Health. We have long benefitted from this funding support that stems from the post-World War II commitment, exemplified by Vannevar Bush’s report, “Science, the Endless Frontier,” which created the framework for a partnership between the federal government and research institutions throughout the United States. This partnership has made the US a world leader in scientific research.
However, recent uncertainty in federal funding challenges the scientific community’s ability to continue making progress against the deadliest diseases affecting Americans today. Furthermore, it threatens the US’s leadership position in research productivity. Rather than signaling a crisis, the current period of volatility underscores a pivotal moment for the national research ecosystem. The disruptions offer an opportunity to strengthen long-term resilience and create funding models that can withstand political shifts.
Shifts in Federal Budgets Sharply Impact Non-Profit Organizations
At non-profit research organizations such as ours, every function at the institute—from microscopy facilities and grant administration to human resources, safety operations, and custodial support—is designed to enable fundamental discovery. This structure provides exceptional flexibility, allowing researchers to pursue ambitious questions without bureaucratic constraints that are often found in more traditional academic settings. However, this model also means that shifts in federal budgets are felt quickly and sharply.
Both of us have recently had to navigate several specific instances of funding delays and cancellations. For example, in FY2025, highly meritorious grant applications to the National Science Foundation and the National Cancer Institute were denied funding due to changes in federal budget policies. We have also had several fellowship programs for graduate students and postdoctoral trainees abruptly cut, after applications were submitted and scored within historically fundable ranges.
When agencies cut programs or redirect funds, laboratories must adjust immediately. Many research labs at the institute rely heavily on long-term staff, often PhD-level scientists who keep scientific projects running. When delays occur, these staff may lose their jobs. These dynamics create cascading disruptions across staffing, stall research progress and publications, and complicate long-term planning. Laboratory-based research does not follow the rhythms of political cycles. The foundational research that fuels advances in cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, aging, infectious disease, and agricultural resilience relies on funding stability.
The effects of delayed or altered funding lead to additional complications within the broader scientific ecosystem. Even after a shutdown ends, agencies must work through large backlogs, compressing or rescheduling review cycles. This creates crowded timelines in which more proposals compete for fewer award slots. For investigators, this also means applying for an ever-increasing number of grants, which becomes both unproductive and unsustainable.
Philanthropic Support Can Help Advance Science
With the uncertainty in scientific funding from the federal government, one question remains: Who or what can fill the gap? A major component that allows institutes like Salk to thrive is a strong foundation of philanthropic support. Having ancillary avenues for scientific funding, such as private philanthropy, foundation-supported research, and gains from endowment, provides institutions and scientists with the ability to pursue cutting-edge, high-risk, high-reward projects that cultivate innovation. Equally important, it provides the stability needed to train—and retain—top-caliber scientists.
We believe that the continued success of scientific research in the US depends on a two-pronged approach. We must continue to advocate with our elected officials and the public to maintain continued public support for science. Secondly, we believe a renewed commitment from private philanthropy in the US is essential to weather the current storm and provide a strong foundation for the future of scientific research in the country. With this commitment, researchers can continue making meaningful discoveries with the potential to cure devastating diseases, strengthen the economy, and sustain America’s global leadership in science.
Federal research agencies must continue to be the backbone of scientific discovery. While current budget constraints pose serious challenges, support for scientific research remains bipartisan in the US.1 This sentiment is driven by the understanding that research improves health, promotes innovation, and drives long-term economic growth. But philanthropy has long served as a vital complement to public funding, providing the flexibility for independent institutes to pursue bold, early-stage ideas that often fall outside traditional funding mechanisms. In fact, prior to the Bush-era directives that shifted funding models after World War II, over a quarter of US health research came from private philanthropy.2 Going forward, a joint commitment between federal and philanthropic support for science will be critical for continued scientific progress and for maintaining the status of the United States as a world leader in scientific research.
At Salk, philanthropic partnerships have supported programs such as the Faculty Fellows initiative, which provided early-stage research support for both of us. Today, philanthropy offers flexibility to maintain momentum during federal delays, retain key personnel, and advance cutting-edge work. The goal is not to replace federal support, but to reinforce it, ensuring stability even when political cycles shift.
The challenges facing researchers today are real, but they are not insurmountable. Strengthening federal science budgets, improving transparency in funding processes, and deepening partnerships between public agencies and private philanthropy will ensure that scientific progress continues to accelerate high-impact science.
Science can’t wait for political certainty. With stable funding and strong partnerships, it won’t have to.
- Furnas AC, et al. Partisan disparities in the funding of science in the United States. Science. 2025;389:1195-1200.
- Ginzberg E, Dutka AB. The financing of biomedical research. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press;1989.
