What Are We For?

A post on finding meaning and community as we embark on a sustained effort to speak out against attacks on science.

Finding Meaning and Community

From June 23-27, our quantitative viral dynamics research group at the University of Maryland hosted ~30 students and ~10 faculty as part of a week-long Summer School on Quantitative Phage-Bacteria Dynamics Across Scales. Days included 2 ½ hours of morning lectures followed by 3 ½ hours of a hands-on computational laboratory and then an early evening plenary. Like any good science workshop, there was coffee, lots of it. Breaks were filled with discussion. We scheduled a single poster session on Monday night, but decided to keep posters up throughout the week, lining the lecture hall with student-driven discoveries so that participants could continue conversations. It was refreshing, almost normal. One of the lecturers expressed his thanks in a quiet moment as the week wore down – he had needed a jolt, some rejuvenation, a win.

Summer School on Quantitative Phage-Bacteria Dynamics Across Scales, College Park, MD, June 23-27, 2025

Since inauguration, the Trump administration has launched a relentless campaign to dismantle American leadership in science. The impacts are substantive and widespread – they impact what we do and how we feel. Here, I have been sharing an insider’s view on threats to institutions, experts, and expertise. There are ample reasons to be concerned. The administration is following through on a roadmap to shrink the size of government and diminish federal support for science even in the face of public opinion that overwhelmingly favors maintaining and even expanding science and medical research. Precisely because of the attacks on science and the effort it takes to turn the tide, it is vital to find moments where we can celebrate wins.

This past Spring, I taught an undergraduate/graduate course on Quantitative and Computational Biosciences for the first time at UMD while leading an interdisciplinary research team whose central aim is to understand how viruses transform human and environmental health. Our group had early career researchers reach major milestones: securing their first, post-college job, publishing their first postdoctoral paper, and for one completing their PhD dissertation.

Our group also worked together to develop materials and a program for the summer school. The quality of the contributed posters and thoughtfulness of student questions revealed just how much we have to learn from the next generation of researchers – if we clear a path. As I reflected on the contrast between how the Trump administration treats scientists vs. what students and scientists have to offer, I realized the visiting lecturer wasn’t the only one who needed a jolt, some rejuvenation, and a win.

Many of us do.

If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?

Science doesn’t just happen on its own. It’s not a magic box that converts funding into discovery. The real world holds surprises. It takes people of many backgrounds and perspectives willing to explore the unknown. Many, if not most, of our first guesses of how things work turn out to be incomplete. Even when things go well, rejection is more common than acceptance and every step in a career pathway involves challenges. The science ecosystem is imperfect and requires reform – how to recruit and retain talent from diverse backgrounds, how to reduce administrative burden, how to translate ideas from the lab into the real world, and how to ensure that innovative ideas can bubble up despite the temptation by grant panels, reviewers, and our own worst instincts to “de-risk” and usher in mediocrity.

But these days, far too much of our time is spent confronting an entirely different world-view espoused by an administration that is not interested in good-faith and challenging reform but, instead, in erasure. This administration views expertise with antipathy. Vice President Vance has referred to universities and professors as ‘the enemy’. Just this past week, Sec. of HHS RFK JR described the process of trusting experts (apparently without irony) as “a feature of totalitarianism”. Do you really want just anyone flying your plane or designing it in the first place? Should just anyone perform open-heart surgery or build your cyberinfrastructure platform?

Experts don’t appear overnight. One of the ways to nurture talent is through the commitment of more experienced practitioners who share insights, state-of-the-art advances, and tacit knowledge. Doing so requires dialogue that is then reflected in the work of early career researchers who spend many hours, often thousands and thousands of hours, honing their craft en route to substantive understanding. That kind of level of commitment requires community and support.

The specific details of the Quantitative Phage-Bacteria Dynamics Across Scales workshop are of interest to a narrow slice of specialists. But the subtext of this year’s workshop resonates more broadly: supporting the next generation of researchers is more vital than ever. Faculty leaders and experienced researchers must be willing to meet this moment by securing opportunities for students to continue to learn, network, and develop a broader toolset and more expansive mindset. If not, then we have already lost far more than a grant cycle or two. Continuing to provide opportunities for early career researchers represents a way to be ‘for ourselves’ as the administration has made it clear that they are definitely not for us.

If we are not for others, who are we?

This summer we face a fight that will reshape the future of science and medical research in the United States. This week’s passage of a reconciliation bill that enshrines tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of a social safety net only heightens the stakes. The White House budget proposal includes >40% cuts to NIH funded research and >50% cuts to NSF funded research. These are not opening salvos to be dialed back, these are their actual goals.

Faced with existential threats to American leadership in science we have an obligation to speak up – particularly within our lanes of expertise – to make sure that our communities and Congressional representatives understand what we study, why it is vital, and what it means in raw economic terms if the core of America’s innovation ecosystem is dismantled. In doing so, we must also remember that if we are not for others then we have missed out one of the central benefits of pursuing a career in science: to explore, discover, and crucially – to serve.

An example from this week illustrates this contrast between what we have built and what the White House would tear down. On June 30^th, the administration released news of 60+ corporate signatories joining a "Pledge to Support America’s Youth and Invest in AI Education". Improving the quantitative readiness of K-12 students should be the subject of robust discussion, including scholars and educators from many fields. But the pledge requires context.

One of the central drivers of STEM education innovation is the National Science Foundation. The White House FY 2026 budget proposal reduces the number of people involved in NSF activities by 240,000, including reducing participation of K-12 students by ~90,000 and K-12 teachers by ~35,000. We do not yet know which fields will be cut – perhaps by chance, our slice of science will be spared. But even if it is, what good is it to work in isolation in a single laboratory surrounded by empty corridors without dialogue or exchange or even trainees?

Projections of the number of people involved in NSF activities in light of the White House proposal to slash the NSF budget in FY 2026 by >50%.

If Not Now, When?

The path ahead involves real threats – losses in funding, retaliation against those who would defy administration talking points, and continued attacks on institutional independence. Fighting back will not be easy and we must be prepared for halting progress and setbacks. Precisely so, we will need to find meaning along the way and celebrate wins when they come. For my part, this research-focused summer school helped reinforce just why so many of us set out in the first place to become scientists and how much we have yet to learn.

Moving forward, I hope each of us takes the chance to support the start of more journeys in science. If we do, then perhaps we will have lived the answer to a question posed long ago on how best to make lasting change in our world: if not now, when?

Note for the historically inclined: subheadings are adapted from R. Hillel, ~2000 years ago.