Skip to main content
Science Vs

The War Keeps Raging Against Science

43 min episode · 2 min read
·
Rose Rimmelitt,Max Kozlov

Episode

43 min

Read time

2 min

Topics

Career Growth, Health & Wellness, Fundraising & VC

AI-Generated Summary

Key Takeaways

  • Economic impact of cuts: Federal science funding generates $1.70 in GDP for every dollar invested. Proposed 50% NSF and 40% NIH budget cuts could reduce average American wages by approximately $10,000 over time, contradicting deficit reduction goals.
  • Grant termination criteria: NIH canceled projects studying DEI, gender ideology, COVID research, vaccine hesitancy, and work that influences public opinion. Climate research must now be reframed as extreme weather without acknowledging climate change causes to receive funding.
  • Researcher exodus risk: Nature poll of 1,600 scientists found 75% are considering leaving the country due to current policies. This brain drain will create generational effects as young scientists abandon US research careers, potentially ending America's science superpower status.
  • Advocacy effectiveness: Long COVID and Women's Health Initiative funding was restored after public outcry from patients, scientists, senators, and celebrities. Speaking up publicly works better than staying silent, as administration is sensitive to media attention and congressional pressure.

What It Covers

The Trump administration has terminated over 1,500 NIH research grants worth $7 billion, affecting COVID, climate, LGBTQ, and vaccine hesitancy studies. Scientists face censorship, funding cuts, and vague gain-of-function research restrictions that threaten America's scientific leadership.

Key Questions Answered

  • Economic impact of cuts: Federal science funding generates $1.70 in GDP for every dollar invested. Proposed 50% NSF and 40% NIH budget cuts could reduce average American wages by approximately $10,000 over time, contradicting deficit reduction goals.
  • Grant termination criteria: NIH canceled projects studying DEI, gender ideology, COVID research, vaccine hesitancy, and work that influences public opinion. Climate research must now be reframed as extreme weather without acknowledging climate change causes to receive funding.
  • Researcher exodus risk: Nature poll of 1,600 scientists found 75% are considering leaving the country due to current policies. This brain drain will create generational effects as young scientists abandon US research careers, potentially ending America's science superpower status.
  • Advocacy effectiveness: Long COVID and Women's Health Initiative funding was restored after public outcry from patients, scientists, senators, and celebrities. Speaking up publicly works better than staying silent, as administration is sensitive to media attention and congressional pressure.

Notable Moment

A nutrition researcher quit NIH after his milkshake study showing ultra-processed foods are not addictive like drugs was suppressed. Officials altered his findings to align with RFK Jr's narrative that sugar is as addictive as crack cocaine.

Know someone who'd find this useful?

Episode Transcript

Hi. I'm Wendy Zuckerman, and you're listening to Science Versus. Today on the show, the unprecedented and sometimes rather strange things that have been happening to science in The US recently. Milkshakes bring all the boys to the yard, so they say. But recently, they've also been courting some controversy. Rose Rimmelitt, senior producer at Science Versus, tell us about the milkshakes. Okay. So this all started a couple months ago. Researchers at the NIH, that's the National Institutes of Health, they published a study where they gave people ultra processed milkshakes. So these are vanilla shakes. They were loaded with fat and sugar, like all milkshakes, but also emulsifiers and artificial flavorings, that kind of stuff. And then they put these people into PET scanners. PET scanners? They're scanning their brains? What what did they wanna know? They were testing out this idea that certain foods might be as addictive as drugs. So, you know, you often hear people say that about sugar. Right. And it's also an idea that's out there about ultra processed foods, that they might be addictive. Mhmm. So what the scientists at the NIH wanted to see was whether drinking a milkshake could cause someone's brain to send out a big whoosh of dopamine in the same way that you might see with addictive drugs. Right? Like that happens with cocaine, for example. So what was the milkshake Bringing all the dopamine to the yard? Yeah. Bringing all the dopamine to the yard. No. So as a rule, drinking the milkshake did not lead to a big rush of dopamine. Uh-huh. And that doesn't mean that ultra processed food or sugar is considered healthy now, but it throws a little cold water on the idea that these foods are addictive in the same way that drugs are addictive. Right. Right. But here's where the story takes a weird turn. And this is why I wanted to talk to you about it, Wendy, for this episode that we're doing now, which is not about milkshakes or ultra processed food or sugar. No. So around the same time that this study came out, a reporter from the New York Times reached out to the researchers asking for an interview. So the lead scientist on this is a nutrition researcher named Kevin Hall. He's very famous in the world of nutrition. He's interviewed all the time. Okay. We've interviewed him here on Science Versus, and I reached out to him again recently about all this. We talked over email. So the protocol that he follows before these interviews is he reaches out to his overlords at the NIH to let them know about the request and that he wants to do the interview. But this time, for the first time, according to Kevin, the NIH said no. They denied his request. He he also says that they quashed a press release that was gonna come out about the study. So it seemed to him that the NIH …

Get the full transcript (7,169 words) + summary by email — free

One-time email with the complete transcript and AI summary of this episode. No account needed.

One email, no spam. We’ll also show you what SignalCast does.

Browse all Science Vs transcripts →

You just read a 3-minute summary of a 40-minute episode.

Get Science Vs summarized like this every Monday — plus up to 2 more podcasts, free.

Pick Your Podcasts — Free

Keep Reading

More from Science Vs

We summarize every new episode. Want them in your inbox?

Similar Episodes

Related episodes from other podcasts

Explore Related Topics

This podcast is featured in Best Science Podcasts (2026) — ranked and reviewed with AI summaries.

Read this week's Health & Longevity Podcast Insights — cross-podcast analysis updated weekly.

You're clearly into Science Vs.

Every Monday, we deliver AI summaries of the latest episodes from Science Vs and 192+ other podcasts. Free for one show.

Start My Monday Digest

No credit card · Unsubscribe anytime