Stephanie Zerwas

@stephzerwas.bsky.social

Psychologist. Therapist. Lapsed academic. Former eating disorder researcher. Current staunch character. Chapel Hill, NC

How bad will it be? Catastrophic. Proposed cuts to #NSF, #NIH, and #NASA will set the US R&D landscape back 25 yrs+, cause economic and job loss now, and undermine innovations to come. But, this is the WH's *proposed* budget. Speak up now before it is too late. (inflation adjusted $-s below)

NSF, NASA and NIH budgets per year, inflation adjusted from 2000-2025 along with the proposed cuts. NSF includes research component only. Massive cuts across all sectors, well below support spanning 25 years.

human lives have dignity as they are, they do not need to be whipped into shape by smooth-skinned patrician hands before deserving not just our love and respect but our joyous affirmation. if you see how somebody's getting by and feel horror the problem is with your gaze not the person. Matthew 7:5

By @katherinejwu.com "The NIH... supported 99 percent of the drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. The agency has had a hand in “nearly all of our major medical breakthroughs over the past several decades,” The NIH is in a struggle for its (and our) lives. This is existential to America:

Inside the Collapse at NIH

Administration officials pressured NIH to avoid clear advice from the agency’s own lawyers to restart grant funding now.

theatlantic.com

NIH cuts are getting the press, but VA research is getting slashed too. What do we lose when VA research goes away? Here's some greatest hits: The nicotine patch, invention of the cardiac pacemaker, first successful liver transplant, development of the CAT/CT scan prospect.org/health/2025-...

VA Research Funding Slashed

Though not as prominent as the NIH, VA researchers play a major role in advancing basic health science. Hundreds of projects have been cut.

prospect.org

Something is shifting. They are still breaking things and stealing things. And they will keep trying to break and to steal. But the propaganda magic around the oligarchical coup is fading. (1/2)

Ok, I'm doing a version of this thread for 🧪 who are new to political conditions where info security is a safety issue: 1. Don't make public lists of people who are engaging in acts of resistance 2. Be weary of calls to advertise acts of subversion 3. Don't live post resistance meetings

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein 🌌@chanda.blacksky.app · last yr.

This is my “daughter of a Black Panther breakfast program volunteer” coming out but anyone who tells you that you have to be public about all your resistance activity should immediately be under suspicion for being an op, or being under the influence of an op

Scientists, I love you. I love your passion. I am one of you. But we have to talk about *how* we communicate what’s happening. People won’t fight for “science” in the abstract. They’ll fight when they understand what they are losing. A quick guide: Not this, but this. 🧵

for pity’s sake, I am BEGGING university leaders to stop framing this issue in terms of what this will cost the university. people dont care! EXPLAIN WHAT THIS WILL COST THE PUBLIC: closed hospitals and clinics, skipped treatments, loss of access to experimental drugs, unemployment, recession

sreenshot from the new york times reporting that Stanford University’s provost is talking about how the loss of funding from national institutes of health funding will cost the university $160 million. that’s not the way to get this changed — the people think “stanford is rich; no big deal.” leaders need to talk about what this will cost the public

Firings are happening right now at the National Science Foundation. Essential staff are being cut. This isn’t about the budget. If it was, they’d be going after the military (17%) or state appropriations (38%). NSF is 0.7% of the federal budget. All federal employees make up only 4% of the budget.

Just read a post that suggests to me that there are still people in the media that believe that cost-reduction is actually Musk and Trumps goal. Omg. People. We are operating on a whole different premise. It’s a whole different world than that.

If you are on a study section that will not be reviewing diversity fellowships but will be reviewing "regular" fellowships, your next move is clear. Do not participate in the review unless all submissions can be reviewed together. Reclassify diversity grants as "regular" grants & review them all

Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, PhD@lluaces.bsky.social · last yr.

I removed the ID of the posters but at what point do we have a moral imperative here? I would not want to participate in a process that explicitly discriminated against minorities. If the applications aren’t reviewed they are basically rejected no? Pull out of the reviews.

This framing is their framing, and NYT took the bait. The correct and accurate framing is: “Deep cuts to medical research threatens progress on cancer and heart disease research, costs the economy $80B, and threatens 300,000 jobs across red and blue states”

Bild