Whose Money Would You Take?
Most scientists hold an order of preference over where research money may come from, and a point below which they would rather stop the work than continue. This SciPoll asks where that point sits, and whether it has already moved.
Public funding for research is under pressure in a number of countries, and the mechanism differs by place: appropriations, grant terminations, changed award conditions, flat budgets eroded by inflation, and reprioritisation away from established programmes.
The United States case is the most documented. More than 7,800 NIH and NSF research grants were terminated or frozen during 2025, and roughly 25,000 staff left federal research agencies over the same period (Nature, 20 January 2026). Over a longer horizon, the federal share of total U.S. research and development spending has fallen for six decades, from a peak of 67% in 1964 to roughly 19% in the most recent National Science Foundation series (NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics). That series runs through 2022–2023 and does not capture the past two years.
Groups losing funding have responded in different ways. Some have gone to foundations, some to industry, some to their own institutions, and some have simply cut the work back. One 64-year marmot ecology study turned to selling subscription video content to the public, raising about $4,000 against an annual shortfall of $75,000 to $100,000 (NPR, 2 August 2026).
Whatever the mechanism, and whichever country you work in, the practical question is the same. If the money that funded a line of work is no longer there, what do you do next? This SciPoll asks the SciPinion expert community what their order of preference actually looks like, and whether it has moved.
Answer for your own work. If you are retired or between roles, answer for the most recent period in which you were professionally active. Nothing here assumes your funding has changed.