Robert P Crease: ‘I’m yet another victim of the Trump administration’s incompetence’
Late on Friday 18 April, the provost of Stony Brook University, where I teach, received a standard letter from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the body that funds much academic research in the US. “Termination of certain awards is necessary,” the e-mail ran, “because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities”. The e-mail mentioned “NSF Award Id 2318247”. Mine.
The termination notice, forwarded to me a few minutes later, was the same one that 400 other researchers all over the US received the same day, in which the agency, following a directive from the Trump administration, grabbed back $233m in grant money. According to the NSF website, projects terminated were “including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and misinformation/disinformation”.
Losing grant money is disastrous for research and for the faculty, postdocs, graduate students and support staff who depend on that support. A friend of mine tried to console me by saying that I had earned a badge of honour for being among the 400 people who threatened the Trump Administration so much that it set out to stop their work. Still, I was baffled. Did I really deserve the axe?
My award, entitled “Social and political dynamics of lab-community relations”, was small potatoes. As the sole principal investigator, I’d hired no postdocs or grad students. I’d also finished most of the research and been given a “no-cost extension” to write it up that was due to expire in a few months. In fact, I’d spent all but $21,432 of the $263,266 of cash.
That may sound like a lot for a humanities researcher, but it barely covered a year of my salary and included indirect costs (to which my grant was subject like any other), along with travel and so on. What’s more, my project’s stated aim was to “enhance the effectiveness of national scientific facilities”, which was clearly within the NSF’s mission.
Such facilities, I had pointed out in my official proposal, are vital if the US is to fulfil its national scientific, technological, medical and educational goals. But friction between a facility and the surrounding community can hamper its work, particularly if the lab’s research is seen as threatening – for example, involving chemical, radiological or biological hazards. Some labs, in fact, have had important, yet perfectly safe, facilities permanently closed out of such fear.
“In an age of Big Science,” I argued, “understanding the dynamics of lab-community interaction is crucial to advancing national, scientific, and public interests.” What’s so contentious about that?
“New bad words”
Maybe I had been careless. After all, Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate’s commerce committee, had claimed in February that 3400 NSF awards worth over $2 billion made during the Biden–Harris administration had promoted DEI and advanced “neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda”. I wondered if I might have inadvertently used some trigger word that outed me as an enemy of the state.
I knew, for instance, that the Trump Administration had marked for deletion photos of the Enola Gay aircraft, which had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, in a Defense Department database because officials had not realized that “Gay” was part of the name of the pilot’s mother. Administration officials had made similar misinterpretations in scientific proposals that included the words “biodiversity” and “transgenic”.
Had I used one of those “new bad words”? I ran a search on my proposal. Did it mention “equity”? No. “Inclusion”? Also no. The word “diversity” appeared only once, in the subtitle of an article in the bibliography about radiation fallout. “Neo-Marxist”? Again, no. Sure, I’d read Marx’s original texts during my graduate training in philosophy, but my NSF documents hadn’t tapped him or his followers as essential to my project.
Then I remembered a sentence in my proposal. “Well-established scientific findings,” I wrote, “have been rejected by activists and politicians, distorted by lurid headlines, and fuelled partisan agendas.” These lead in turn to “conspiracy theories, fake facts, science denial and charges of corruption”.
Was that it, I wondered? Had the NSF officials thought that I had meant to refer to the administration’s attacks on climate change science, vaccines, green energy and other issues? If so, that was outrageous! There was not a shred of truth to it – no truth at all!
Ructions and retractions
On 23 April – five days after the NSF termination notice – two researchers at Harvard University put together an online “Terminated NSF grant tracker”, which contained information based on what they found in the NSF database. Curious, I scrolled down to SUNY at Stony Brook and found mine: “Social and political dynamics of lab-community relations”.
I was shocked to discover that almost everything about it in the NSF database was wrong, including the abstract
I was shocked to discover that almost everything about it in the NSF database was wrong, including the abstract. The abstract given for my grant was apparently that of another NSF award, for a study that touched on DEI themes – a legitimate and useful thing to study under any normal regime, but not this one. At last, I had the reason for my grant termination: an NSF error.
The next day, 24 April, I managed to speak to the beleaguered NSF programme director, who was kind and understanding and said there’d been a mistake in the database. When I asked her if it could be fixed she said, “I don’t know”. When I asked her if the termination can be reversed, she said, “I don’t know”. I alerted Stony Brook’s grants-management office, which began to press the NSF to reverse its decision. A few hours later I learned that NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan had resigned.
I briefly wondered if Panchanathan had been fired because my grant had been bungled. No such luck; he was probably disgusted with the administration’s treatment of the agency. But while the mistake over my abstract evidently wasn’t deliberate, the malice behind my grant’s termination certainly was. Further, doesn’t one routinely double-check before taking such an unprecedented and monumental step as terminating a grant by a major scientific agency?
I then felt guilty about my anger; who was I to complain? After all, some US agencies have been shockingly incompetent lately
I then felt guilty about my anger; who was I to complain? After all, some US agencies have been shockingly incompetent lately. A man was mistakenly sent by the Department of Homeland Security to a dangerious prison in El Salvardor and they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) get him back. The Department of Health and Human Services has downplayed the value of vaccines, fuelling a measles epidemic in Texas, while defence secretary Pete Hegseth used the Signal messaging app to release classified military secrets regarding a war in progress to a journalist.
How narcissistic of me to become livid only when personally affected by termination of an award that’s almost over anyway.
A few days later, on 28 April, Stony Brook’s provost received another e-mail about my grant from the NSF. Forwarded to me, it said: “the termination notice is retracted; NSF terminated this project in error”. Since then, the online documents at the NSF, and the information about my grant in the tracker, have thankfully been corrected.
The critical point
In a few years’ time, I’ll put together another proposal to study the difference between the way that US government handles science and the needs of its citizens. I’ll certainly have a lot more material to draw on. Meanwhile, I’ll reluctantly wear my badge of honour. For I deserve it – though not, as I initially thought, because I had threatened the Trump Administration enough that they tried to halt my research.
I got it simply because I’m yet another victim of the Trump Administration’s incompetence.
The post Robert P Crease: ‘I’m yet another victim of the Trump administration’s incompetence’ appeared first on Physics World.