Research Is Being Undermined — What Does That Mean for Science Writers at Research Institutions?

By Abigail Eisenstadt and Matt Shipman

The Trump administration has made policy changes and funding decisions that have wide-reaching ramifications for scientific research and higher education. These actions pose significant challenges for science writers and communicators, particularly those who work at research institutions.

In recent years, science writers have faced an increasing number of challenges, such as misinformation and mistrust of science. But the Trump administration’s deep cuts to research funding and broad changes to longstanding federal oversight policies are new. The consequences of these new challenges are still unfolding across the scientific ecosystem, and it is hard to predict how our community will be forced to adapt.

Institutional science writers are in a unique position to characterize and respond to policies that threaten the public’s interest as it relates to science. Showing specific and tangible ways that research serves society (e.g., as members of the FDA’s communications team did to inform the public on a variety of health topics after they were laid off) is an excellent way to rally public support for science. If we want to move forward, we have to find ways to do this at scale as a professional community.

To rally our efforts, we first have to identify and define the challenges we face. Then, we can consider possible paths forward as a community.

What are the current and future challenges for institutional science writers and communicators?

Institutional science writers (those in government, universities, publishers, museums, and more) have a front-row seat to policy-driven disruptions to research. We are juggling diverse stakeholder interpretations of directives and are tasked with creating a cohesive response. We are left to pivot rapidly in our messaging as our leadership reacts to unpredictable directions from the government. We must monitor ongoing legal actions addressing funding decisions, policies, and oversight. Essentially, many of the biggest challenges for institutional science writers are the same challenges facing researchers.

Federal Oversight Changes

The nature of federal oversight is in flux, with changes that are often erratic and punitive. These changes have dampened the enthusiasm of researchers to share their work and its real-world applications. This adversely affects our ability to cover important, often politicized, topics.

• The rapid expansion of federal oversight has created a fear of retaliation among individual researchers, especially those investigating topics targeted by political agendas.
• The apparent punishment of some research institutions for politically-motivated reasons has increased reluctance among researchers to discuss their work and what it means publicly.
• Leadership in some institutions — especially those targeted by the Trump administration — has begun self-censoring the output of communications offices, without explicit direction to do so by the administration. This does little to earn goodwill with federal officials and significantly undermines public trust in the integrity and independence of these institutions. Furthermore, these censorship efforts often harm morale, leading to psychological breaches of contract among institutions’ rank-and-file communities (a topic that may be addressed in another piece).
• Loss of governmental databases and periodic/potential government shutdowns obstruct accessibility to longstanding publicly-held reservoirs of scientific knowledge.
• Language related to DEI and other politicized topics has become risky to use, because there is potential for political reprisal.
• There are new concerns about the accuracy and integrity of data on federal sites.

Reduced Research Funding

Reduced funding is threatening institutional science communications and the science writing community overall by decreasing the number of active science projects and programs and slowing the pace of research. Without active research programs, we are limited in our ability to communicate how science serves the common good.

• There are fewer resources available to support laboratories, as well as fewer resources to initiate science communication efforts.
• Reduced research funding and cuts to grant overhead decrease the amount of research being conducted and lead to science staffing cuts. Decreasing the number of science staff increases constraints on researchers’ time and limits their ability to work with science writers.
• Over time, there will be significantly fewer research findings to highlight. That has consequences for science writers who work with research institutions, and trickles down to reporters as well.
• Slashing research funding undermines the ability of scientists to make meaningful discoveries that benefit society, which erodes public support for science by undermining its credibility and importance.

What are possible paths forward for institutional science writers and communicators?

We have a handful of ideas about how institutional science writers may be able to adapt to the growing suite of challenges. Possible paths forward include:

• Meeting with researchers more often since they may need encouragement to share findings and story opportunities with journalists and the public. Building these relationships also reinforces trust and recognition of our field’s value.
• Highlighting researchers’ expertise by training them to contribute to public conversations. For example, helping researchers provide analyses of current events, placing new discoveries in context, etc. By supporting researchers’ careers, we also show the value of institutional science writers.
• Amplifying person-/personality-driven pieces to humanize researchers and fight the “ivory tower” stereotype.
• Stressing the economic impact of scientific research (e.g., new technologies; new startups; retroactive analysis of economic impact) to appeal to both the public in general and policymakers in particular.
• Emphasizing explainers that tap into curiosity about the world.
• Making research systems more transparent. How does the process of research and research funding actually work? Why is it done by the government and institutions rather than businesses? How does that benefit the public good? How does it provide value? Who does it provide value to?
• Spending more time defining and understanding our target audiences so that we can appeal more directly to their specific interests and concerns.
• Highlighting narratives about the history of science: how did work done by researchers in the past change the world (or the way we understand it) for the better?
• Investing in internal communications (targeted internal email campaigns, not public facing; also encouraging university partners to share on their platforms) to reinforce solidarity and demonstrate our skillset/worth.
• Telling stories of research that directly spotlight the repercussions of withheld or lost funding

What are we missing?

One of our goals here is to let other science writers know that they are not alone; we’re all facing new challenges. Our other goal is to begin a conversation. We have almost certainly not been able to capture all of the relevant challenges and possible paths forward. These are only some of the challenges and paths forward we’ve identified. What are we missing? Let us know what you’re thinking. Hopefully, this can be an opportunity for constructive dialogue that helps us all navigate these uncharted waters.

This post originally appeared on Medium.

Connect with Matt Shipman at Bluesky.