Documenting a “drastically changing” scientific landscape
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and provides behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism works.
Since the Trump administration made some of the deepest cuts to U.S. science funding in decades, thousands of jobs have been eliminated or frozen at federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. This year’s proposed budgets include significant cuts to organizations like NASA and the National Science Foundation.
These sometimes seemingly indiscriminate cuts have led to chaos and demoralization throughout the scientific community.
“Whatever reason the Trump administration calls it, this is having an enormous negative impact on the American scientific enterprise, which represents one of the United States’ signature achievements of the last 60 or 70 years,” said Health and Science Editor Alan Burdick. “The country has been a prime example of excellence in research and as a supporter of research. And that landscape is changing drastically.”
This reality inspired the “Lost Science” series, which profiles researchers from many areas of science who have either lost their jobs or funding because of the cuts. Their stories are told as first-person accounts and span a range of areas, including research into wildfires and elephant behavior.
“We’re not here to express opinions per se, but because we’re a science newsroom, we felt like we needed to do something to highlight what it’s about,” Burdick said, adding that reporters and editors from the climate newsroom also worked on the series.
In a recent interview with Times Insider, Mr. Burdick discussed why the Times created the series and the impact it has on readers. This interview has been condensed and edited.
How did the Lost Science series begin?
We wanted to make a series that would help readers understand what is disappearing. Some of this could be large, cutting-edge applied science, or it could be smaller, more basic research. I felt we had a duty to document the wide range of research that was falling by the wayside, and hearing directly from the scientists themselves seemed like the most effective approach.
Our readers love science, math and physics as well as climate science, biology and medicine. They love the extent to which science provides a sense of awe, wonder, and discovery of the world. All of this leads to a sense of human progress.
How did you find your topics?
We started by polling our reporters and asking, “Who do you know?” We also posted a note to readers; Many have written back to describe their own situations or those of scientists they know, and we are trying to follow up.
They have stories about tsunami warnings and research that has a direct connection to climate. But then there are things like hummingbird behavior, fields that are a little off the beaten path. How did you select these fields?
Many scientific papers have a specific purpose; It is what might be called applied science, research conducted to try to solve specific problems. Climate scientists often fall into this category, especially when it comes to disasters like tsunamis or wildfires. But most of the science being done in the United States and helping the Trump administration is basic research. It can be easy to make fun of basic research: “Oh, ecologists are studying this strange species of ants in the Amazon. Who cares?” That’s a legitimate question, and it’s up to us to answer it.
A simple answer is that basic science is just applied science that has not yet been applied. No one could have imagined that a small portion of research in quantum physics could be important in building the Internet decades later. The goal of science is to learn about the world and understand why things work the way they do. They are smart people asking questions and interrogating nature in the most rigorous way they can. And over time, that knowledge adds up in ways we often couldn’t foresee.
This is one of the great virtues of science: we invest in learning, we invest in understanding, and we trust that this understanding will improve us. Therefore, our series covers a wide range of research areas, from spacecraft engineering to canine cognition.
What challenges are associated with this project?
One criterion is that researchers must feel comfortable making statements and being photographed. The researchers we spoke to are mostly well-established; Maybe they lost a big project but have another project that keeps them going. It’s been harder to hear from younger researchers or researchers of color because they feel more vulnerable putting their name out there. It’s understandable. We work really hard to make sure we hear those voices.
What reactions did Lost Science receive from readers?
We’ve heard from readers and scholars: “We’re so glad you’re doing this series. It’s important. Keep it up.” That was really encouraging. It makes us feel like we are doing the right thing and in the right way. Some other stories we write are super eye-catching and we know a lot of people will read them. These are pretty small. We felt that we had to act as witnesses for the sake of history.
