Figuring out what to focus on now & what to focus on next in science and higher ed

This newsletter is my part of an ongoing conversation among colleagues who’ve had a rough week. I share two or three pieces of the puzzle that feel are most important, hazard a guess about what to expect next, and offer at least one useful thing to do.

MEETING THE MOMENT: 2025-02-21

Hello friends,

As we mark one month since Inauguration, I’m thinking about three questions that feel omnipresent.

“How are you?” The choreography of our pleasantries has changed. The now-routine grimaces, sharp laughs, and caveats all mark something important: we are groping for answers and unsure of how much to share with each other. We are struggling to keep track of the latest news, to figure out what it means for us and those we care about, and how to prepare for what might be coming next.

“What is happening?” We can answer that by gathering information. This debrief is built on the combined efforts of an amazing group of volunteers collating and curating news, announcements, court decisions, and so much more, and you can now browse our Tracker here. But gathering information is only the beginning of the work.

“What should we be doing?” This one, which we all desperately want answered, is substantially harder, no matter how much reading and tracking we do. Endless analysis is a trap for our academic instincts. Sensemaking is inherently personal and political: we cannot escape the deeply emotional nature of risk perception and decision-making involved, and we shouldn’t try to, either. We may not agree on specific tactics or timing, but to make sense of our situation and produce useful strategies, we all need to stay focused, not flooded, so let’s get into it.

What’s happening now:

• In the past month, we’ve seen universities, scientific societies, philanthropies, and The National Academies all racing to comply with the executive order targeting programs promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Today, a federal judge just granted a preliminary injunction against this ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’ order. The ruling suggests that the attempt to punish and eradicate DEI efforts are a blatant and egregious restriction of free speech, which would be unconstitutional. I found this memo from law professors providing specific guidance to university leaders to be readable and very helpful. It explains in detail why DEIA initiatives are not just legally defensible, but in fact an obligation.
• There’s more good news from today: the federal judge presiding over three key lawsuits extended the temporary restraining order blocking the administration from slashing NIH indirects to 15%. There is no set timeline for her final decision, but observers seem to feel that there was a clear understanding of what is at stake. What I think is important for you to know about these cases is that universities are not fighting alone - forty-five cities, counties, and mayors from across the country have filed an amicus brief supporting NIH funding, while other mayors are key partners for the DEI lawsuits. I take heart in these emerging alliances: they help me cope with…
• …the bad news: There’s a mismatch between specific court rulings and what is happening in reality. In January, the administration was blocked in a broad effort to freeze all federal grants, and that temporary restraining order was subsequently extended. This is great in theory, but a different administrative maneuver has functionally ended grantmaking anyway. By barring the NIH from submitting anything to the Federal Register Notice, the Department of Health and Human Services has created an ‘end run’ that halts the meetings required to renew existing grants or approve new ones. In short, billions of dollars of taxpayer money are still not flowing into biomedical research, and the clock is ticking.
• And finally: I’m thinking about all our colleagues who have been fired from federal agencies this week and last. The chaos and damage is truly mind-boggling. I was glad to see at least a few reversals, especially for Indian Health Services and bird flu teams. There are going to continue to be a lot more lawsuits on this front. I thought this analysis was useful in explaining why courts can only be one part of the calculus.
  

What’s next:

I’m thinking about two longer-term issues right now. The first are our future colleagues and the next generation of scientists. We know that our current early career researchers are vulnerable and suffering, that universities are pausing and cancelling admissions for incoming graduate students, and that international undergraduates may be shifting their applications away from American universities. I’m worried about all of it. The second is our long-term datasets: I’m feeling haunted by the holes we are facing in instruments like this maternal-child health survey or this educational attainment survey, which have been running for my entire lifespan. Future investments can’t make up for missing data - if we don’t collect it, it’s gone.  

What to do:

Specifically, what do we do when there is so much to do? We go back to basics. To paraphrase a friend, strategic communication can be surprisingly simple: “think, feel, do”. This outcome-oriented framework is aimed at working through what you want an audience to know or believe, how you want them to feel, and what action you want them to take. You’re my audience, and I’ll be plain.

1. Think - I want you to believe your personal actions matter, and to be able to list all the ways you personally can exert power
2. Feel - I want you to reach down to your core convictions and feel your own strength  - it may be a small hot coal, it may be a steely coldness, we all feel different things
3. Do - I want you to choose one thing to do aligned with your values. The emphasis is not on our everyday calculation and compromise, but something that honors your feelings
   

Here’s what that looked like for me yesterday: I have refused to continue serving on a National Academies awards committee until I see the leadership meaningfully defend DEIA and the integrity of science. Is this a large-scale strategic maneuver that is going to bend them to my will? Certainly not. But what it does do is help me personally. I have taken a stand on issues I think will define our time. It feels deeply satisfying, and yet I am surprised at how self-conscious and alone I feel taking that stand. And that makes me grateful to have a little more practice feeling that and doing it anyway. I cherish the people who have backed me up on this, but I’d do it alone if I had to. And now I’m a little more ready to take the next stand when it comes. It feels amazing to move in the right direction. I’m not saying you need to do the same things as me, I just want you to find the things that make you feel like this.

If you don’t know where to start, Stand Up for Science is happening very soon! If that’s not for you, here’s a list of actions that are not protesting or voting. If you want more ideas, here’s a big list Rebecca Solnit & co are keeping. I hope something here inspires you to do your own thing this week - and then I hope you tell me about it. Hearing each other’s stories expands our ability to imagine what is possible.

No one thing is going to make the difference, but all of it matters. Onward.