As an aspiring academic scientist, the next step in my career is to obtain a postdoctoral fellowship. This process cannot be delayed, as research trainee awards are only available for a period of time after you graduate. In searching for a fellowship, we must also consider our scientific interests, the lab environment, and the ability to conduct transformative science in a well-funded lab.
Funding biomedical research in the United States is almost entirely dependent on grants awarded by the federal government through the National Institutes of Health, which had a budget of $48 billion in fiscal year 2025. Considering a lab in the U.S., however, became complicated after the initial budget proposal by the executive branch outlined a 40% cut in NIH funding to $27.5 billion. Making things even more convoluted, the passage of the most recent bill, House Resolution 1− the One Big Beautiful Bill − did not include NIH funding.
Since HR 1 passed through reconciliation, it eliminated discretionary spending in the bill’s language, which includes NIH funding. While it meant the proposed cuts by the executive branch were not put into law, it also meant a viable plan for funding science in the U.S. was not guaranteed. This has left nearly all scientists in the U.S. waiting to see if the proposed 40% cut to NIH funding will be put into motion.
I cannot stress enough how draconian these cuts will be to science at large. A 40% cut in NIH spending will prevent the advancement of American research on cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and other rare disorders. PhD-level scientists in the U.S. will lose their jobs, forcing intellectual capital to China and other European countries that are actively investing in scientific research. In anticipation of these proposals, along with cuts made through executive action, many labs in the U.S. have paused hiring new scientists. This has already put the "brain drain" in motion, forcing me and others to obtain our fellowships outside of the U.S.
The scientific communityneedsa viable, dependable NIH for the U.S. to advance scientific discoveries. Reckless cuts like these will do much more harm than good. Personally, it has been difficult accepting that I must move to Germany, as family from both sides emigrated from Europe to seek a better life here in the U.S. My great-grandfather on my mother’s side moved to avoid being enlisted into the German Imperial Army in WWI, and my great-grandfather on my father’s side emigrated from nazi-occupied Poland during WWII to avoid dying in the concentration camps. Yet here I am, in some twisted sense of irony, going back to Germany to advance my career in hopes of a better life.
Regardless, I’m grateful I still have some say in my fate, and I’m absolutely determined to make my move to Germany work. I’m confident that I will be able to generate science on par with any American lab I would have joined under better circumstances.
While I’m no longer able to stay here, science in the U.S. has a chance to be the world leader in scientific discovery. This will all depend on a future appropriations bill that will maintain viable funding levels for the NIH. Congress cannot undo the damage that has already taken place, but it certainly can prevent more catastrophic damage from occurring.
For that reason, I’m writing in hopes others will read this, share this message with their elected members, and do what they can to maintain NIH funding for the future of science both in the U.S. and the world at large.
Ben Weinhaus has a PhD in Immunology from the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
