**The Freeze at NIH Under the Trump Administration Provokes Outrage and Doubt Within the Scientific Sphere**
Researchers throughout the United States have been caught off guard by the Trump administration’s recent suspension of peer review processes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), exacerbating confusion surrounding new orders that have imposed temporary yet disruptive constraints on external communications and travel at the agency. This interruption, seemingly related to a regulatory freeze and executive orders enacted early in Trump’s presidency, has ignited concern and discontent among academic researchers reliant on NIH funding.
### **An Abrupt Halt to Peer Review**
The peer review system at NIH, which entails panels of academic scientists meticulously assessing grant applications, is fundamental to U.S. biomedical research financing. Its current stagnation has taken many researchers by surprise. Among them is Matthew Hirschey, a cell biologist and biochemist at Duke University, who reports that his usual role in NIH study sections — as both an applicant and a grant reviewer — has been disrupted. Hirschey, who has been involved with NIH study panels for over a decade, learned of the freeze after he submitted a grant to a colleague for evaluation, only to find out that all upcoming peer-review meetings had been paused indefinitely.
The interruption appears to have disrupted ongoing discussions within NIH study sections, where experts had gathered to examine the scientific merit and potential funding for grant applications. Some researchers indicate that meetings were halted mid-discussion, while others reported that their scheduled reviews were abruptly canceled.
“I’m particularly concerned about the grants I have waiting for review in February and March,” Hirschey explains, expressing that delays could lead to a significant backlog and hinder funding for research initiatives.
### **Executive Orders Initiate Shutdown**
The trigger for the freeze seems to stem from a sweeping regulatory freeze enacted through one of President Trump’s early executive orders. This overarching directive mandated a reevaluation of federal guidance, regulations, and communications, compelling agencies like the NIH to consult with the White House before moving forward. Such a freeze has disoriented federal departments, including the NIH and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
A memorandum from HHS reportedly barred staff from releasing grant announcements, press statements, and other public communications. During this period, study sections — crucial for evaluating research proposals for NIH funding — appear to have also fallen under this freeze, leading researchers to seek clarity.
“Whoever in the White House enacted this external communication freeze likely did not grasp its implications,” states a U.S.-based process chemist known as Chemjobber, a frequent contributor to *Chemistry World*. “They do not understand how severely young academic careers can be impacted by a sudden slowdown in the grant funding system.”
### **Consequences for Early-Career Scientists and DEI Issues**
The ramifications of this slowdown extend beyond seasoned researchers; it significantly jeopardizes early-career scientists whose prospects may heavily depend on timely NIH grants. Such funding is often a critical stepping stone for young scientists striving to make their mark in competitive academic realms.
Moreover, worries have been raised concerning the potential politicization of funding policies, particularly regarding initiatives oriented towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Certain grants backed by NIH and other bodies feature DEI components, which Trump and his supporters have previously condemned. Kyle Grice, a chemist at DePaul University, highlights that similar DEI-centric programs are being diminished elsewhere, like the Department of Energy’s Promoting Inclusive & Equitable Research Plan.
“This situation is utter chaos,” Grice states. He mentions that his own bioinorganic chemistry grant, slated for review later this month, might also be impacted. “It is very unpredictable and frightening, and this could extend beyond the NIH and HHS to affect agencies like the National Science Foundation.”
### **Widespread Effects on the Research Community**
With funding sources and operational schedules at risk, academic researchers are preparing for a series of challenges. Jane Liebschutz, a University of Pittsburgh researcher specializing in opioid addiction treatment, cautions that this freeze could halt essential scientific work and severely impact university research budgets.
“We simply do not know what the outcome will be,” Liebschutz remarks. Nonetheless, she encourages fellow scientists to persist, continuing to submit proposals and informing the public about the vital role of peer review in scientific exploration.
Compounding the confusion are restrictions on NIH communications, which include emails and official correspondence critical for issuing contracts, such as notices of award that initiate federal funding releases. Hirschey points out that these communication barriers could effectively cease the flow of research funding: “If no communications are permitted, then all funding will stop until this is rectified.”
### **Unclear Future Ahead**
The scientific community remains cautiously optimistic that these disturbances are temporary. Guidance from HHS indicates that the communication freeze may conclude by February 1, though there is