Stand Up For Science Protest in Raleigh – Personal Retrospective
On March 7, 2025, Stand Up For Science organized a demonstration in downtown Raleigh to protest massive funding and personnel cuts in the U.S. scientific research ecosystem.
As a UNC graduate student in Biochemistry at the time, several of my colleagues were attending, organizing, and running the event. I decided to attend as well and to document the rally both digitally and on film, just to cover my bases. I remember vividly a sense of communal support and unity, but also real disappointment and urgency. I think most of us in attendance were acutely aware of the cost of cost-cutting in research. For several, that knowledge comes first-hand:
The rest of 2025 was a blur for me personally as I was wrapping up my dissertation project and trying to figure out my next steps. The NIH study section collapses that had already occurred under this administration were indirectly altering my trajectory as I was trying to calculate it. My PI and I had an informal plan to let me stay on in the lab for a little while after my defense, which would have been mutually beneficial. The money to pay for that (my salary and materials) was going to come from a grant that had been submitted, but was stuck mid-review in what I understand to have been a decapitated NIH study section. We were told we'd have our results by a certain deadline, which arrived and passed with no decision except for a new, later deadline, which also passed without a funding decision. At some point, it became clear it really might not ever get funded. This was a bit shocking due to the strong initial score the grant received, which would have resulted in funding in any previous year. For context, this was a lab that studied proteins involved in lipid metabolism (high triglycerides, heart disease, etc.). It had never been (and should never be) difficult to obtain funding for that purpose. And yet, last I heard, that grant was still in limbo.
The pressure induced by funding scarcity also had indirect effects in the form of a stark shift in the work environment. Without going into detail, I left my program feeling like I had no future in science. I'd spent 25 out of my nearly 30 years in school, obtained a terminal degree, and didn't want to use it. I know I'm not the only one who experienced something like this, and many people had their path toward their degree taken from them completely as a result of funding and program cuts. My point in mentioning this is not to generate sympathy for me personally—science and I are fine without each other—but rather to highlight subtle ways that science is impacted by policy, specifically within its training pipeline. I'm sure we'll be unpacking consequences of the fallout from these broader political events for years to come. It's important to maintain the perspective that this isn't really about any one person's path or self fulfillment, but rather about trends that result in fewer advances to help people like the woman pictured above.
There is some good news to be shared though. One of the major issues that necessitated this protest and broader movement was the proposed cap on "indirect costs*," which was thankfully rejected by Congress earlier this year. The name "indirect costs" is vague because it's a category that encompasses so many expenses that are necessary to research, but it can be summarized as the overhead outside of researchers' salaries. I don't know what exactly would have happened if the cap had been implemented, but the consensus was generally 'a disaster.'
I'm proud of everyone who keeps organizing for a better future in the face of so much absolute nonsense. I hope that these photos express my appreciation for all the people, many of them students, who were part of this effort.
Below: Stand Up For Science rally on March 7, 2025. Attendees faces are redacted for privacy. The speaker in the pink jacket is Representative Deborah Ross (NC–D). All photos taken by Anna Wheless, mixture of film and digital photography.
*Indirect costs are paying for things like the building where the lab is located, the salaries for people who work in that building outside of the lab (admin, facilities managers, shipping and handling, etc), utilities, and more. Usually, when an academic lab earns a grant, the university takes a cut (often over 50%) of the grant to cover these costs. In a way it's like taxes that pay for things we need, like roads and good schools. The Trump administration wanted to cap the fraction that universities could use for indirect costs to 15%. At first glance that almost sounds like a nice thing for research (isn't it good for more money to go to the researchers and less to the institution?) but in reality, it would have meant that universities wouldn't have been able to pay for many of the necessary facilities and personnel for research to continue.
