Funding Cuts Are a ‘Gut Punch' for STEM Education Researchers
Change continues to ripple through the National Science Foundation as it tries to comply with the policies and priorities of the Trump administration. But the branch of the agency that funds STEM education research is taking a disproportionate hit.
STEM education research focuses on improving how students, from preschool to university, are trained in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That encompasses everything from adopting better curriculums and teaching methods to changing the way schools and districts are run. Researchers say that the values encapsulated in diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., have been a focus in the field since long before the terms were strung into an acronym and popularized.
'The work of STEM education has always been about creating a bigger tent, giving access to more students of all backgrounds so that our STEM work force better reflects the diversity and demographics of the American public,' said Mike Steele, a math education researcher at Ball State University and a former program officer in the National Science Foundation's directorate of STEM education.
More than 1,400 research grants at the foundation have been canceled since April, according to Grant Watch, a crowdsourced online database. As of May 7, awards for STEM education accounted for 54 percent of those terminations, a loss of $773 million in funding, which represents nearly three-fourths of the total dollar amount of terminated foundation grants.
One canceled project aimed to use virtual reality to better engage high school students with autism in engineering. Another created hands-on programs for Indigenous youth to grow food using traditional knowledge and modern technology. A third intended to double the number of rural students earning associate's and bachelor's degrees in STEM across the Black Belt of Alabama.
Experts in the field saw the grant cancellations as part of a broader attack on education, as well as on D.E.I., by the Trump administration.
'It was a gut punch,' said Julie Posselt, an associate dean of the graduate school at the University of Southern California, and a 'pretty profound confirmation' that the cuts were not about science writ large. 'It's about the association of educational research with interests and values that are at odds with the administration's priorities.'
Dr. Posselt was a member of an advisory committee, dissolved in April, for the foundation's education directorate. This month, two of her grants from the agency, both supporting research on STEM graduate education, were cut.
'De-prioritizing STEM education is just a slightly delayed way of de-prioritizing STEM,' said Joe Champion, a math education researcher at Boise State University. He noted that it often took a decade or more of training for scientists to meaningfully contribute to cutting-edge programs. 'Reducing the quality of the training can't possibly be good for society,' he said.
On May 9, the foundation announced that it was 'sunsetting' its division of equity for excellence in STEM, part of the agency's directorate for STEM education, 'to ensure our efforts align with our priorities,' according to a statement on the agency's website. (The foundation suspended this decision on May 12 in compliance with a temporary restraining order, according to internal records reviewed by The New York Times.)
The move follows previous actions by the foundation to comply with an executive order issued by President Trump in January, which called for the elimination of D.E.I. across the federal government. A spokesman for the agency declined to comment on the grant terminations or the decision to close the division of equity for excellence in STEM.
The federal government has worked to broaden participation of people from underrepresented groups in STEM since at least 1980, when Congress enacted the Science and Technology Equal Opportunities Act. The mandate authorized the foundation to support educational efforts to increase the number of women and racial minorities in STEM. In 2010, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act required the agency to include the increased participation of marginalized groups in STEM as part of its criteria for funding research.
The agency began to adopt D.E.I. language more explicitly during the Biden administration. 'It was an emerging priority,' said Adrienne Dixson, an education researcher at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Dixson was hired by the foundation in 2021 to help run its new racial equity in STEM education program. In 2022, the foundation hired its first chief diversity officer and renamed its education directorate, as well as the division of equity for excellence in STEM, to 'more accurately reflect and communicate' its values, including diversity and inclusion in STEM.
But when Mr. Trump took office this year, the foundation began a review of current awards containing buzzwords commonly associated with D.E.I. In April, the agency announced that projects relying on 'D.E.I. frameworks or advocacy' did not represent its priorities, and the grant terminations began.
The defunding comes amid broader shifts in education. That includes mass layoffs and hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to various components of the Department of Education, which Mr. Trump has tried to eliminate altogether.
'The broader attack here is on evidence,' said William Penuel, an education researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder. 'Without evidence, anyone can make up a story about how schools are doing and what they need to do.'
One potential outcome of defunding a large portion of STEM education research is that the work may become more concentrated at larger universities that are able to provide alternative sources of funding.
That's unfortunate, Dr. Champion said, as STEM education is often tailored to local and state-level priorities. 'When the research is done by just a few people in localized parts of the country, everyone else is tapping into incomplete information about what's the best way to teach and to learn, and what are the most effective materials to use,' he said.
Researchers funded outside of the foundation's STEM education directorate — in physics, engineering, geoscience and more — face less extreme cuts. But they, too, are concerned about the financial support and educational preparation of students in STEM, many of whom would lead the next generation of scientific discoveries.
'STEM and STEM education research need to grow hand in hand,' Dr. Penuel said. 'And if we stop funding education research, they won't.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Updates in Metastatic NSCLC From ASCO 2025
Dr Jonathan Goldman, of the University of California, Los Angeles, shares key updates in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer from ASCO 2025. Dr Goldman reviews findings from TROPION-Lung02, which evaluated datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) ± pembrolizumab (pembro) in first-line metastatic NSCLC. The objective response rate (ORR) was 55% for Dato-DXd + pembro vs 56% for chemo. Improved outcomes in TROP2 NMR-positive patients may indicate a predictive biomarker. Dr Goldman then discusses results from OptiTROP-Lung03, in which sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT) showed superior efficacy compared to docetaxel in pretreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The ORR for sac-TMT was 45% vs 15% for docetaxel. Next, he highlights updates from KRYSTAL-7 of first-line adagrasib plus pembro in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC. The combination yielded an ORR of 44% and median duration of response of 26.3 months. In patients with a PD-L1 ≥ 50%, ORR reached 50% vs 34% in those with lower expression. Dr Goldman also reports on HERTHENA-Lung02, in which patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemo in resistant EGFR-mutated NSCLC, but the lack of overall survival benefit led to application withdrawal. Finally, Dr Goldman reviews phase 2b findings from REZILIENT1, evaluating zipalertinib in EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC. In patients without prior amivantamab, ORR was 40% and PFS was 9.5 months. In those previously treated with amivantamab, zipalertinib resulted in clinically meaningful results: an ORR of 23.5% and PFS of 7.3 months.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biotech industry faces off: US vs. China
China has become a significant player in the biotech space, potentially threatening the lead the US holds. EY Americas industry markets leader for health sciences and wellness Arda Ural sits down with Josh Lipton and Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Anjalee Khemlani to discuss the dynamics between the US and China in the biotech industry. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here According to a recent report from the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, China has the most immediate opportunity to overtake the United States in biotechnology. For more, let's welcome in Arta Rawi America's industry markets leader and Health Sciences and wellness, as well as Yahoo Finance's very own Anjali Camlani. Welcome to you both. All right, I'll start with you. Uh, maybe it's just a big question, big picture question. Does the US have the investment power, in your opinion, to overtake China in biotech? Yeah, thanks for having me. Uh, the biotech is the innovation feeder to the big pharmaceuticals and it only uh nurtures well in an ecosystem. So to answer your question, what do you need in that ecosystem for that to nurture? Uh, investment capacity, which we have been having for the last, you know, decades, if you will, to kind of keep investing in that innovation to move on. NIH has been probably the world's largest VC over $40 billion in non-dilute funding into the entrepreneurial startups. Then you have talent who has been, you know, coming all these top universities and MDs and PhDs who are dedicated to advance it. And then you need this technology transfer system so that those intellectual property translate into a startup. And then with that investment capacity, it keeps growing and then through testing and going to the humans and then ultimately being developed for everyone's use. So, uh, yes, the US still has the capacity to invest, but it is not potentially the only game in town given the development coming from China. I'm curious, Arta, because we know, I know you've been tracking the deals and uh, we've seen the number of deals steadily increasing over the years. I saw, uh, one of the ones that you sent, which looks at the number of deals so far to date for 2025 is more than half of what we saw in 2024. So we can expect that to really outpace 2024. What does that mean though? Because I know that some of the deals that are happening are more, um, what you would call licensing deals, right? It's not necessarily that this money is going to from scratch investment and innovation, but it's more stuff that has already happened and is built up. Talk to me about that and why that matters. I mean, first of all, the numbers are pretty compelling. A couple years ago, we had pretty much like no deals under a billion dollars in 2016. And as of last year, there were $30 billion worth of licensing deals from Chinese assets into the US, and 2025 is a very strong start, so they're definitely going to beat that number. So the reason why this is happening is in 2015, Chinese Communist Party put a priority of investing in biotech and that was a priority sectors. And it was 10 years ago, and that 10 years of journey started to play out for their benefit because China historically has been known for this active product ingredients and excipients, which is like the chemicals that pharmaceuticals were using to make small molecule products. And that journey now is taking them to upstream to more advanced innovation. Probably we still have not seen a first in class, but clearly they are going for best in class, like those are the shots on goal if you are seeing more and more. Well, that's why, that would be my question because I know that we've seen sort of they're doing copycats or metoos in terms of the type of innovation coming out of China. Um, do we expect that they have the wherewithal to outdo the US then in that sense, in terms of coming up with the next blockbuster for the entire world? I mean, there are a couple examples, early examples that some of the Chinese based assets actually head-to-head comparisons, you know, beat or exceed, at least match the efficacy and safety profile of some of the Western developed compounds. But this is also a journey as the audio question. So what is it, what do they need more to get there? So they have the talent. I mean a lot of Western educated MDs and PhDs went back to China working on that. The government itself as a part of prioritization program have been investing in it. So then the question is, do they have an exit strategy for those entrepreneurs? And that I think is where they are lacking because there's no like an IPO market that is comparable to the Western standards. There's no like an M&A exit until recently. I think that's where the weakness kind of may be the opportunity for them to come up. But the deals we were talking about, they're because of the intellectual property concerns, because of the concerns of reliability and trust in the data because, you know, there's no such institution in the world like FDA that everyone trusts and hopefully continue to trust. And for that reason, the deals seem to be more asset purchases. So I'm not taking a risk by operating in China, but I'm buying the asset and in a licensing deal, and I'll continue to develop it, especially if you can make this cheaper and faster in China, which has been their competitive advantage over the Western companies, then you bring that into a human fast and then the human testing can be done, validations can be done in the more Western setting. I think that can be a winning formula for the industry. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rise in VC activity tees up ‘strong year' for medtech funding: PitchBook
This story was originally published on MedTech Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily MedTech Dive newsletter. Increases in venture capital investments have positioned 2025 to be a 'strong year for global medtech funding,' according to a report from market data research firm PitchBook. First quarter VC funding totaled $4.1 billion, the highest it has been since 2022. The number of confirmed transactions hit 216, reversing a four-quarter decline. However, the uptick in medtech mergers and acquisitions that PitchBook predicted under the second Trump administration has yet to emerge, and antitrust regulators are still challenging deals. Medtech VC activity fell in both 2022 and 2023, according to PitchBook. Last year brought signs that the market might be bottoming. The number of VC investments fell for the third year in a row, but the amount of funding was higher than in 2023. Signs of a VC recovery continued into the first quarter of 2025, when the $260 million investment in whole-body-imaging startup Neko Health was the largest of 11 rounds worth $100 million or more. With Elon Musk's brain implant startup Neuralink raising $650 million this month, PitchBook said preliminary data for the second quarter shows more than $3 billion of medtech VC funding so far. VC exits are rare, though. PitchBook said there were no significant medtech VC exits in the first quarter, and the total exit value remained roughly in line with the previous two quarters. Total exit value in recent years has been driven by rare big deals, such as Tempus AI's initial public offering in 2024 and the $6 billion acquisition of Athelas in 2023. PitchBook highlighted three notable exits that closed in the first quarter: Beta Bionics' IPO, Hologics' $350 million takeover of Gynesonics and Boston Scientific's $540 million acquisition of SoniVie. The level of activity has fallen short of PitchBook's expectations. 'Our earlier thesis that the new U.S. presidential administration's more lenient regulatory stance would catalyze M&A activity has yet to play out, as broader market turbulence in early 2025 has complicated dealmaking conditions across sectors,' PitchBook said. 'Additionally, regulatory resistance remains a headwind.' PitchBook cited the Federal Trade Commission's legal challenge to the $627 million private equity buyout of Surmodics as evidence of ongoing regulatory resistance. The FTC challenged the deal on the grounds it 'would lead to a highly concentrated market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings and eliminate significant head-to-head competition.' Recommended Reading Medtech venture investment recovery continues, but startup M&A remains limited: Pitchbook Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
