This Is No Time to Sit on the Sidelines

Paleontological research in the United States is funded by the Division of Earth Sciences under the auspices of the Geosciences Directorate, which has been supporting our community’s efforts since its inception in 1950, exactly 230 days before I arrived on the planet. It’s not a century ago, but getting closer to that centennial mark as I write this. Over those years, I’ve been both a recipient of grant funds to support mine and my student’s research efforts, and have had the privilege to serve the agency in a few capacities. I have witnessed the times when funding was stable, but never at support levels near equivalent to other directorates. I can attest to those times when budgets were cut and, subsequently, restored to levels that were lower than previously allocated without any adjustment for the intervening inflation. I have endured the years when the program was over mortgaged and few funds were available for new awards. I have lived through years during which agency priorities were realigned, older programs phased out or terminated, and “transformative” research agendas advanced. I know the times when GEO/EAR was close to being placed on life support. All of those former times pale in contrast to the current attack on science, science funding, and the legitimacy of our discipline as one in the national interest. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

Unless you have buried yourself head-first into whichever homogenous or heterogenous muddy or sandy matrix you prefer, you are aware of the rapid assault on science now being undertaken since the installation of the current administration in our nation’s capital. Both Science and Nature, as well as other professional outlets, continue reporting on the weekly, often daily, executive orders and congressional actions that affect the efforts of the broader scientific community. Continuing grants across disciplines have been terminated without cause or explanation but, presumably, because someone, somewhere, decided that funds were being expended on wasteful “woke” science (doi: 10.1126/science.zwhcbou). GEO/EAR is no exception. An additional layer of review has been installed at NSF for new grants that are recommended for funding at the directorate level. A new review board, as yet identified but likely not staffed by any scientist, will be the ultimate arbiter as to whether the proposal will receive or denied funding (https://www.science.org/; doi: 10.1126/science.ze7oo7c). The final decision will no longer be the sole responsibility of any NSF directorate. And, the criteria on which the final decision will be based are not readily available, although there is a list of ~250+ terms, deemed as inappropriate for the disbursement of federal dollars, that may be used in this post-directorate level review. I guess the only advice for the future is to choose your words carefully, although the minefield likely will increase exponentially without notification. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

The House of Representatives has proposed a 2026 Budget that slashes funding across scientific agencies; that budget has just been narrowly approved and sent to the Senate. Significantly reduced support for NSF is no exception, and GEO/EAR programs are in the crosshairs. The advisory committee for the geosciences was dissolved as of 15 April (https://www.nsf.gov/executive-orders#committees). NSF learned of these, and other, actions only through media accounts without direct communication from the White House or intervening cabinet offices. Many staff have book marked, and regularly check, other governmental websites for daily updates that may affect their programs. As I compose this piece today, and unless action is taken, funding cuts to NSF’s budget are destined to be reduced from 9 (9 x 10⁹) to 4 billion (4 x 10⁹) dollars. This is a 55% reduction in what the agency received in FY 25, the end of which is only a few months hence (30 September; see the 22 May 2025 NYTimes article https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/22/upshot/nsf-grants-trump-cuts.html). NSF has already experienced a reduction-in-force (RIF) with the loss of directorate-level employees and staffing. According to Chemical and Engineering News and the American Institute of Physics, 84 Senior Executive Service positions have been eliminated, a reduction of 60%, and there has been an 80% reduction in the number of temporary staff. It is unknown how many temporary employees have returned to the agency in subsequent court actions. But, more layoffs are likely in the future (https://www.aip.org/fyi/nsf-director-resigns-amid-mass-grant-cuts-looming-layoffs) and the ability to rehire or hire competent staffing is certain to be compromised by future uncertainties, which may be part of a larger strategy. As you might expect, these administrative-cost savings have brought the timing of grant fund disbursement to a slowdown, if not a grinding halt in many instances. And, it would appear that these reductions are designed and purposeful, aligning with the policies outlined in Project 2025 (https://www.aip.org/fyi/project-2025-outlines-possible-future-for-science-agencies). This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

NSF has been directed by the administration to refocus its attention and funding opportunities to four areas of national priority. These are Quantum Information Science, Computationally Intensive Research (AI), Manufacturing, and Biotechnology. Although it is their intention to refocus national energy policy by expanding oil and natural gas production, and “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources,” the role of geosciences and associated engineering disciplines remain opaque. Efforts are being made particularly to decrease the relevance and role of our discipline in these national interests. Continuing grants investigating the response of Earth systems to climate change in the Holocene/Neogene and deeper time projects have been terminated. Additional project terminations are only a matter of time, and these will serve another purpose about a long standing and vexing issue with conservative groups–evolution. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

It was a hundred years ago when Dayton, Tennessee, became the epicenter of a media circus when Thomas J. Scopes was indicted by a grand jury for violating the state’s anti-evolution law, the Butler Act. The trial began on 10 July and ended on 21 July 1925. He was found guilty and fined $100. The Butler Act was repealed a mere 42 years later, but attempts to include or mandate the biblical account of creation and resultant biodiversity in public school curricula have not gone unabated. I was in Augusta, Maine, last year to testify at the Department of Education’s public hearing on a proposal to revise the state’s science standards where elements of Intelligent Design “theory”, touted as offering a balanced alternative to the evolution controversy, crept into the document’s text. ID legislation advanced in other states have not been as cryptic. Although it is, at the moment, prohibited at the federal level to teach ID in public schools, creationism and ID continue to be seen as a valid explanation for planet Earth by at least 37% of Americans (2024, https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx). Payed attendance at Kentucky’s Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, based on the 50-cent “safety fee” levied by Grant County, exceeds 700,000 patrons per year since 2017 (https://rightingamerica.net/). Florida attempted to mandate the teaching of ID in 2009 (House Bill 1483); other states continue this effort. Bills advancing this “theory” have been introduced in North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Iowa since January of this year. Those legislative attempts have failed, although the Iowa bill, if enacted, would have removed climate change and omitted biological evolution from the curriculum (https://ncse.ngo/). Actions taken by Executive Order, affecting both NSF and the Department of Education, have the potential to bolster these attempts. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

I don’t think it goes without saying, but I’ll say it nevertheless, that a staggering reduction in funding for the Division of Geosciences, and EAR/GEO, will directly compromise paleontological research programs now and in the foreseeable future. The affected areas of study are not just those where we use paleontological proxies to retrodict our planet’s history. It is also true at the core of our discipline; the foundational studies on which we base our interpretations. By reducing or eliminating funding on evolution and biodiversity (and, indeed, these terms already may be on the final arbiter’s list-of-woke), advances in our understanding of life on Earth will witness a definite body blow, if not experience its death knell. NSF funding to support research programs and the education of the next generation of paleontologists will be a distant memory. NSF funding that was once available to cover publication fees to disseminate research will no longer be available which, in turn, will affect professional societal functions. Funds that may have been returned to the PI from their institution after an award grant will be used by academic institutions for other overhead expenses as the result of a 15% cap on indirect costs. The list goes on. Our collective ability to pursue paleontological research, other than what captivates the public’s attention––dinosaurs––will be compromised. Collaborative research with international colleagues who will continue to be supported by their governments may be the only alternative. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

Similarly, decimation of staffing and programs at the Department of Education, what appears to be push back on the Next Generation Science Standards by that agency, and its recommendation that state’s control their academic curricula, which they already do, offer the potential for increased attempts at passing ID legislation at the state and local level. It is no secret that before Mike Johnson, currently Speaker of the House, was elected, he was a lawyer and “legal go-to-guy” on behalf of Ark Encounter. In 2008, he represented conservative efforts to introduce legislation in Louisiana (Senate Bill 561) that enabled creationism to be taught as supplemental materials in public school classrooms. Although Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has not publicly stated her views on science education, she has pushed for more school choice and more diverse (can I use that word?) approaches to science education. At last month’s annual ASU+GSV Summit in San Diego (8 April 2025), she highlighted the efforts of Iowa’s governor, Kim Reynolds, on her state’s educational policies. Governor Reynolds is quoted in www.edweek.org as saying:

“No two states are the same. We all have different priorities, we all have different needs. … It makes more sense, I think, for the communities and the state and for the parents to be involved in the education at the state level.” 

If we still believe in the transitive property of equality, A=B and B=C, then what follows about introducing ID in the public school system is.... I’ll leave that mental manipulation to you. Evolution and evolutionary studies may not be obvious targets on the political surface of committed administrative chaos. But, actions speak louder than words. And actions taken by federal-and-state levels of government would indicate that the Scopes Trial is still alive. This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

As a cohort of scientists, paleontologists are generally non-confrontational. Okay, sure; we all can name names. Yet, there is no other body of scientists that can advocate for our discipline but ourselves. Advocacy must begin at the local, regional, and state level where the greatest impact to the future direction of science education manifests itself. Concurrently, advocacy at the national level is, now more than ever, crucial to ensure that science, and paleontology, be sustained. This is no time to sit on the sidelines. It is up to us. Act now.

Note: The Paleontology Society published its first Special Paper on the “controversy” in 1984 (Walker, K.R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science and Education: A Handbook. Paleontological Society Special Publications, Knoxville, TN., v. 1) and revisited it in 15 years later (Manger, W.L., ed., 1999, The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers, v. 5). Both publications used to be accessible on the Society’s website; they no longer appear to be available for download and links are non-functional in Cambridge Core.