Is there anything else you would like to share about how the current funding landscape is affecting scientific research in your field?

No

It is dwindling. 

In Nigeria, besides government subvention to institutions, research is being funded through the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) through a yearly selection of research at the Institution -based Research (IBR) and the National Research Fund (national) levels.
The funding at the two levels are competed for by researchers yearly and selected researches are funded respectively. The IBR attracts only 5 million Naira while IBR can win up to 50 million naira funding. Given the US dollar value of the naira, only limited research could be achieved at both levels of funding. 

Findings always comes with big names some new researchers dont have fair chances.

 

One thing that feels different lately is the shift in how people think about risk. Labs are becoming more cautious—not necessarily because they want to, but because the margin for failure is smaller. Projects that are exploratory or a bit unconventional are harder to justify when funding is uncertain, so there’s a tendency to lean toward safer, more predictable work. Over time, that could quietly affect the kind of innovation we see coming out of the system. Another change is how much time is going into grant writing and resubmissions. It’s not unusual now to see multiple rounds before anything gets funded, which means a significant portion of researchers’ time is spent chasing funding rather than doing the work itself. That has a real impact on productivity, especially for smaller labs. There’s also a noticeable effect on early-career researchers. People are becoming more hesitant about starting independent labs or staying in academia long-term, simply because the pathway looks less stable. In conversations with colleagues, I’ve heard more people seriously considering alternative career paths than before. It’s not just about reduced funding levels—it’s the uncertainty and shifting structure that seem to be influencing behavior the most, from project design to career decisions. 

The current funding landscape is defining what is getting studied in labs. Shifts are being made in personal research to align with government funding recommendations, which is constraining and limiting to science. Science is about following the evidence, the greatest discoveries are made in thinking outside the box. Right now the box is very small, and it limits the scope and impact of science.

I picked 5-7 years because I believe the public will not allow the US to become a second class science nation. However during that period unless alternative funding sources are found we will loose a generation of young scientists and it may take up to 15 years to re-establish our preeminence. 

Argentina is undergoing a profound transformation, with efforts to stabilize public finances, while research programs have been reduced, allocating more funding to those with a technological base.

Conduct research according to government policies and accomplish as much as possible with the money available。

No thanks

Give focus on evidenced based decision-making and foster strong collaboration in research and innovation.

The entire academic enterprise is under attack. I’m concerned where this will lead. It certainly won’t be good. 

Critical areas are not addressed.

First, obtaining financing for research is difficult. Second, even when financing is available, lengthy bureaucratic processes imposed by academic institutions and government bodies frequently impede it. Furthermore, our nation's administrative workforce frequently lacks efficiency, causing delays in carrying out its duties.

- The current funding landscape for health science research in Ethiopia is characterized by heavy dependence on foreign aid and a critical shortage of domestic funding, which directly compromises the independence and sustainability of research.

Although my research does not rely on government funding, I am observing significant ripple effects across my field. Reductions or delays in federal funding are leading some colleagues to scale back ambitious projects, shift toward shorter-term applied work, or leave academia altogether. This creates gaps in long-term basic science and reduces opportunities for early-career researchers. Additionally, the uncertainty is pushing more investigators toward industry partnerships, which, while valuable, can subtly shift research agendas toward commercially viable questions rather than curiosity-driven discovery. A healthier funding landscape would balance stability, peer review integrity, and diverse funding sources to preserve scientific independence and innovation over the long term.
 

Obstetric, fetal, neonatal areas have always been at the lower end as more preventive / screening focus is required on the beginning of life rather than the end of life.

The current funding situation in the US is in a state of chaos and rampant disorder. There is always a necessity to provide logical structured oversight coupled with necessary change to improve the process and the system. But in the current case no logic, no plan just destructive disorder and chaos. 

No

You have to have expertise in the cutting edge of science. Whether its Omics, Atmospheric or Quantum technologies; the people at the top of the agencies must have proven expertise.

I am in math/statistics and funding is relatively efficient.

It appears that Trump-associated political directives including but not limited to discredited RFK vaccine "safety" initiatives have taken their toll.  It also appears this is due to widespread misinformation disseminated to the public via 'social media' rumors.  Greater effort to inform the public with fact-based evidence is needed.

n/a

No

No

I used to be a member of committees, both local as well as international and in all cases I have a feeling that at least 30 - 50 % of the committee's members are supporting a particular institutions not only by giving better evaluation but also by distracting the best competing project by decreasing their evaluations

top projects are always successful in obtaining funding

As a researcher working in a low-resource setting, I believe that instability in science funding has consequences beyond the countries where funding cuts occur. Reduced federal and institutional research support in major research systems can limit international collaborations, slow multicenter studies, reduce opportunities for early-career researchers, and widen the gap between well-funded and under-resourced institutions.

In my field, the most important challenge is not only the amount of funding, but also the predictability, transparency, and independence of funding decisions. Researchers need stable support, fair peer review, and opportunities for collaboration that are not shaped primarily by short-term political priorities. Protecting independent peer review and expanding international and philanthropic funding mechanisms would help preserve scientific integrity and allow researchers in low- and middle-income countries to contribute more effectively to global evidence generation.

Limiting the scope you can cover.

nill

Scholars have had enough of "Artificial Intelligence" (better referred to as Large Language Models) and there should be more varied scope of priorities