Federally-funded research has been the backbone of innovations in technology and drug discovery, with 354 of 356 drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019 having come from federally-funded projects.1 It also directly benefits local economies, creating jobs at universities and research centers and generating more than 94 billion dollars in activity across the US in 2024. However, across the country, these benefits are at risk.
In February of 2025, the Trump administration announced changes that would cap indirect costs on federally-funded grants to 15 percent. Additionally, in response to executive orders, funding agencies began canceling grants that focused on or were funded by mechanisms to increase workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). As of May 12, the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation had canceled more than 1.5 billion dollars in grants. The sudden upheaval to research funding left many institutions and researchers searching for ways to highlight how their work improves lives to rally support from the public.
For example, Dana Topousis, the chief marketing and communications officer at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), and her team created From Labs to Lives. This initiative includes fact sheets and videos from scientists at UC Davis talking about their research, its impact on society, and the risks to it if federal funding disappears. “It's a way to connect why research universities matter, what they do locally, but then also what they contribute nationally, economically, [and] even globally,” Topousis said.
Scientists Speak Up About Federal Funding
Theanne Griffith, a neuroscientist at UC Davis, is one of many researchers concerned by the threats to federal funding. Griffith studies how sensory neurons detect and interact with muscles and motor neurons. In one of her projects, she is investigating the mechanisms driving chemotherapy-induced nerve damage and pain to identify drug targets that can improve patient experiences.
Theanne Griffith participated in the From Labs to Lives video series. One of her grants that explores potential drug targets to reduce pain during cancer treatment could be terminated because of new federal policies.
Samantha Joven Photography
“The grant that funds that [work] is probably on the chopping block,” Griffith said. The project’s support comes from a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funding mechanism designed to enhance faculty diversity.
However, the Trump administration’s intent to end DEI programs puts basic science research like Griffith’s at risk. “We need diverse minds tackling big questions, because we all have our intrinsic bias. We all have our blind spots,” Griffith said. “When you have enough people thinking about something from different backgrounds, those blind spots cancel out.”
While she presented her work at traditional scientific conferences and seminars, Griffith’s experience with public science communication was mostly in the form of writing children’s science books. “In terms of sharing my personal research with the general community, I don’t do as much of that,” she said.
After the introduction of policies that terminated grants, froze hiring, and sought to reduce indirect costs, though, Griffith started to get involved in talking about science research more broadly. She was a co-organizer for a local Stand Up for Science event. To encourage participation in the protest, Griffith attended a town hall meeting where she talked about the risk of her grant being defunded as an example for what was at stake.
As a result of this, Topousis invited Griffith to participate in their upcoming initiative. She accepted. “I wanted people to know about the work we were doing and that it was at risk for being terminated for no reason,” Griffith said.
In her video, Griffith highlighted how slashing federal research funding could mean delays in improving the quality of patient care for people with cancer. Other researchers talked about how losing this funding could interrupt support systems for young people with anxiety and depression, halt research into the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, and slow down the discoveries that lead to new drugs and therapies.
“I hope that people see those [videos] and really feel more positive about that relationship between the federal government's investments and what higher ed is doing with those investments,” Topousis said.
Highlighting the Impact of Research Beyond the Lab
Dana Topousis and her team worked with researchers and government relations personnel to create From Labs to Lives.
UC Davis
In addition to the personal stories from scientists about their research, Topousis explained that her team created fact sheets that outlined economic outputs and research accomplishments from federally-funded research. She said that individuals from the university’s government relations teams have used these sheets to speak with elected officials and their staff to advocate for the importance of research funding. “Our teams are feeling armed with the right information,” she said, adding that this in turn helps policy makers promote research funding.
The resources are also helpful for other science groups. Griffith is on the board of the American Brain Coalition. She said that her local representative reached out to the group to request information about the impacts on researchers from the changes in federal funding. “Now we have this beautiful database, so we can just send a link,” Griffith said.
Beyond being inspired to advocate for her own research, Griffith said, “It’s important to talk about science as part of our general ecosystem and economy.” She added that federal funding promotes innovation through research that lays the groundwork for discoveries.
“I was really happy that [UC Davis] had this public-facing series on what people's tax dollars are paying for,” Griffith said. “This was a nice first step that they were taking to highlight the research basically that could be at risk if the federal government decides to really drastically affect or cut funding of biomedical research.”
Indeed, Topousis said that her team is exploring expanding the initiative to create videos featuring people beyond researchers who are impacted by federally-funded research at the university, such as patients, farmers, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers.
- Galkina Cleary E, et al. Comparison of research spending on new drug approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the pharmaceutical industry, 2010-2019. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(4):e230511.
