Federal Funding for Neuroscience Is at a Crossroads. What It Means for New Labs

I have had my lab since 2017, and I have made advances that I am extraordinarily proud of. I had the opportunity to enter a science world that catered to junior sciencest and Postdocs wanting to jump on the science scene. But today, federal funding for academic science, especially neuroscience, is under severe strain in 2025 and early-career PIs and new labs are bearing much of the burden. Agencies like National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have drastically cut the number of new and continuing grants awarded — a move described by some as the worst disruption to the U.S. science enterprise in decades. 

A recent analysis found that the NIH canceled or froze roughly $2.3 billion across ~2,500 grants in 2025, while NSF cut or cancelled over 1,300 grants, erasing hundreds of millions more in funding.   Training grants and fellowships, the lifeblood of junior scientists, trainees, and post-docs and mechanisms that i have used to train a bevy of young exctied minds, have been among the hardest hit. 

This is tough for late and mid-stage PIs, but for early-career PIs, these changes are deeply destabilizing. Without reliable funding streams, it’s become much harder to build teams, launch new studies, support trainees, or even plan long-term. The interruption and uncertainty threaten not only individual labs but the broader pipeline of scientific innovation — reducing opportunities for young scientists to succeed, pushing some out of academia altogether, and undermining future discoveries in brain science, mental health, and neurodevelopment. 

Despite the turmoil, not all is lost. In a major 2025 court ruling, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking across-the-board cuts to NIH indirect-cost reimbursement rates. That decision helped halt part of the wave of grant cancellations and temporarily restored some stability for at least a subset of labs.  Moreover, there is growing pushback from universities, research institutions, advocacy groups, and the scientific community. Many emphasize that federal science funding remains essential, not just for discovery, but for training, equity, and long-term national health.  Alternatives are also emerging. Foundation-based funding, philanthropy, industry partnerships, and institutional support are becoming more important. Some labs are pivoting toward less resource-intensive work (e.g., computational or human-subject studies), or seeking non-federal grants, though this often means trading flexibility and academic independence. 

For labs that manage to hold on, or for those with existing funding, the situation remains precarious but potentially salvageable — especially if they diversify funding, ramp up collaborations, and adapt to the shifting landscape.

So, what are the risks & what do we stand to lose? Why should the general public care?Cuts to federal funding aren’t just a blip, they threaten the long-term health of the entire scientific ecosystem. According to recent modeling, widespread funding reductions could cause major workforce losses, slow discovery and innovation, and hinder the U.S.’s global leadership in biomedical research.  Clinical trials, including those for neurological, psychiatric, and aging-related diseases, are already being interrupted, postponed, or canceled.   This not only delays scientific progress, but may directly impact public health and patient care.

Importantly, early-career scientists, trainees, and labs just starting out are arguably the most vulnerable. Without stable funding, many will be unable to build teams, launch ambitious projects, or sustain long-term research — causing a “brain drain” or forcing talented people out of academia. If such trends continue, we risk losing decades of accumulated potential: fewer labs, fewer discoveries, fewer treatments, and fewer young scientists inspired to build their careers in neuroscience.

Science is not a product of quick returns — it thrives on long-term investment, continuity, and a nurturing environment for young scientists. The current funding crisis threatens that ecosystem just when we need fresh ideas, diverse perspectives, and bold new work in neuroscience and medicine.

For early-career PIs, postdocs, graduate students, and trainees, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Every frozen grant, canceled fellowship, or paused trial is a lost opportunity — for innovation, for health, for the next generation of scientists.

But there is a path forward:

• Advocate for restored and stable federal funding — not just for big labs, but for junior investigators, training grants, and early-stage research.

• Diversify funding sources: foundations, philanthropy, industry collaborations, institutional bridging funds.

• Build community: mentorship networks, shared resources, multi-lab collaborations, cross-disciplinary grants.

• Emphasize the long-term value: basic science, neurodevelopment, mental health, aging — societal challenges that need stable support.

If we care about the future of neuroscience — and about the lives affected by brain disease, stress, mental illness, and aging — then investing in early-career labs and junior PIs must be a top priority.

Science is more than data on a page — it’s people, passion, long hours, and a willingness to keep asking questions. If funding short-circuits that process, we don’t just lose grants — we lose hope, innovation, and progress.

But if we stand together — scientists, institutions, advocates, policymakers — perhaps we can preserve the pipeline, nurture the next generation of researchers, and ensure that discovery continues. Because right now, the future of neuroscience depends on it.