͵ÅÄ͵¿ú

Blotter

ASBMB cautions against sacrificing science funds to make debt-ceiling deal

Society emphasizes the importance of preserving research from scientists supported by the NIH, NSF and DOE
Marissa Locke Rottinghaus
April 20, 2023

The ͵ÅÄ͵¿ú and ͵ÅÄ͵¿ú Biology released a statement this week calling on policymakers participating in debt-ceiling negotiations to preserve funding to major scientific agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

In January, the United States reached its debt limit of $31.4 trillion. House Republicans are resisting raising the debt ceiling unless federal spending levels are reduced to fiscal year 2022 levels, which would reduce discretionary funding to the NIH, NSF and DOE by 22%.

U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy provided a on Tuesday.   

A spending cut of that size would eliminate funding for and and researchers, according to the agencies.

Sarina Neote, public affairs director of the ASBMB, said the ASBMB strongly opposes reducing federal spending for science at this time and described the potential fallout as “devastating” to both the economy and scientific enterprise.

“Such cuts would negatively impact our 11,000 students, researchers, educators and industry professionals,” Neote said. “We have an obligation to do whatever we can to ensure that our members do not lose their funding or jobs.”

In the society’s statement, it argued: “This proposal would damage the U.S. research enterprise, weaken the nation's global leadership in science and technology, and threaten the scientists and students working tirelessly toward the next breakthroughs.”

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for negotiators to agree on a new debt limit to June. In the meantime, the ASBMB urged lawmakers to consider the impacts that spending cuts would have on the lives of scientists and their families.

“Each federal grant supports not just a principal investigator, but a whole lab made up of staff scientists, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students and even undergraduate trainees,” the society wrote. “Cutting each federal grant means multiple people will lose their livelihoods and training opportunities. We must not let this happen.”

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Become a member to receive the print edition four times a year and the digital edition weekly.

Learn more
Marissa Locke Rottinghaus

Marissa Locke Rottinghaus is the science writer for the ASBMB.

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.

Latest in Policy

Policy highlights or most popular articles

Applied research won’t flourish without basic science
Essay

Applied research won’t flourish without basic science

Oct. 6, 2024

Three senior figures at the US National Institutes of Health explain why the agency remains committed to supporting basic science and research.

ASBMB weighs in on NIH reform proposal
Blotter

ASBMB weighs in on NIH reform proposal

Sept. 25, 2024

The agency must continue to prioritize investigator-initiated, curiosity-driven basic research, society says.

ASBMB seeks feedback on NIH postdoc training questions
Training

ASBMB seeks feedback on NIH postdoc training questions

Sept. 18, 2024

The National Institutes of Health takes steps toward addressing concerns about support caps, a funding mechanism and professional development.

5 growing threats to academic freedom
Essay

5 growing threats to academic freedom

Aug. 18, 2024

From educational gag orders to the decline of tenure-track positions, academic freedom in the United States has been worsening in recent years.

Will Congress revive the China Initiative?
Diversity

Will Congress revive the China Initiative?

Aug. 14, 2024

The 2018 program to counter economic espionage raised fears about anti-Asian discrimination and discouraged researchers.

The sweeping impact of the Supreme Court’s Chevron reversal
News

The sweeping impact of the Supreme Court’s Chevron reversal

Aug. 3, 2024

Repealing the 40-year-old doctrine throws laws on climate, conservation, health, technology and more into doubt.