- The NSF did underspend their federal appropriation for FY26 by more than 20%, obligating only $6.37B out of more than $8B budgeted. In terms of numbers of awards, they made 2410 fewer awards in FY26 than in FY25, and about 5000 fewer awards than typical in FY21-24.
- This includes the almost complete evisceration of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate. As that Science news article points out, SBE has until now funded about 2/3 of all US research in the social sciences (including linguistics and archeology). The presidential budget request has been calling for SBE's elimination for the last two years. Congress has rejected that in its budgeting, but seemingly OMB has gotten its way regardless.
- There are more NSF X-Labs topics on the way, and a webinar next week to talk more about the "AI for Physical Systems" one.
- NSF has also created a "metascience" office and released a statement about collaborating with the UK on this. I've given my take on metascience before - the idea of seriously studying which types and mechanisms of research funding and programs give the "best" "results" is good in principle, but extraordinarily difficult in practice. The idea that sound conclusions can be drawn in just a few years is absurd.
- On the unambiguously positive side (gotta take the win when there is one), the NSF did announce the surprise support of the National Math Stars effort.
- NSF also announced the first of their new Grand Challenge programs, rumored to be a possible destination of (some of?) the unspent funding from the top point above. No real information about them yet, though the Quantum+X one has a webpage where you can sign up for updates. Given the description ("Whether you're a researcher at a university, a startup, or an established company, this prize challenge is your chance to help define the next era of quantum technology."), it's hard not to wonder if this is another conscious effort to have NSF be a funding vehicle for industry/business rather than longer-term research.
- These announcements happened in part at the "Science: A New Golden Age Summit" (link to White House release about this.). The National Medal of Science was presented to various tech leaders (not scientists). If any of my readers attended this event, I'd be very curious about a first-hand account.
- DOE has announced the Genesis Mission Graduate Fellowship program. The idea is a 4-year PhD with "cocompetencies" between a discipline and AI, with required extended internships at DOE labs/user facilities and industrial partners. The actual call is here, with a LOI due on 9 November and a preproposal deadline of 23 November.
- For those of you who are PIs in condensed matter physics, the new DOE notice of funding opportunities (pdf) is out. Pay close attention to the condensed matter physics program, as its focus has shifted.
- Similarly, the new Air Force Office of Scientific Research BAA is out, and as with DOE, the focus of the condensed matter program has shifted. Both DOE and AFOSR are now explicitly very interested in quantum geometry.
On the more general research landscape:
- It's pretty clear that no matter what happens in the upcoming US elections, the next two years at least are likely to be comparatively bleak for federal support of science and engineering research. Fundamentally, regardless of what OSTP says and despite glossy announcements of new programs, it sure seems like the executive branch (OMB) still wants to curtail federal support for research, and there is not much that even an opposed Congress alone can do in the near term.
- The number of STEM PhDs entering the job market in 5-ish years is going to be 25% down or more, because funding uncertainty has led to two consecutive years of double-digit decreases in admissions. Remember, only 10% or less of STEM PhDs go into academia, so this demographic drop is going to be largely felt by industry. I remain surprised by the apparent apathy about this. If I thought my technical workforce applicant pool for some jobs might decline by double digits, I'd at least have some concern.
- Perhaps industry is collectively assuming that AI will somehow make up for this. OpenAI released 722 preprints out there this week with results in math and mathematical physics. This is simultaneously impressive and awful, and much has been written about it. See here for an article and here for a weekly digest, from Quanta. Peter Woit is hosting an interesting discussion, and points to a collection of comments about this.
- The US administration also announced a rule change that would impose a $70000 charge for "curricular practical training" (the mechanism that allows international students on F1 visas to have internships during their time as students) and a total of $100000 in fees for "occupational practical training" (the mechanism for international students to be allowed to work in the US for a period after completing their studies). The actual proposed rule change is here, and people can submit public comments here until November 9. Personally, I think that this rule change is yet another component of a seeming concerted effort to make the US unattractive as a destination for international scholars, a strategy that is incredibly self-defeating for the country. (Sure looks like a lot of the "yes, kill OPT" comments are verbatim copy/paste of the same text. Seems like someone has seen prior public commenting efforts on other controversial rule changes and decided to mobilize.) Like the prior proposed duration of status changes for F1 and J visas (injunction discussed here), there are likely to be multiple big lawsuits filed over this.
Whew. This was a lot. It's hard to maintain my customary equanimity when the pace of disruptive news is this rapid. I will hopefully write more about some cool science soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment