This story is part of our series Science Matters, where we interview scientists about the practical implications of federal attacks on science jobs, funding, and education for everyday families and public health.
Not everyone has a favorite organ. But Carmen Marsit does and it’s the placenta. Dr. Marsit is an environmental molecular epidemiologist who studies, among other things, environmental exposures during pregnancy like pesticides, endocrine disruptors, and air pollution, and their impact on children’s health.
Tell EPA: Moms Strongly Oppose Rolling Back Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
At present, the Trump administration’s widespread cuts to scientific funding are not harming Dr. Marsit’s important work, even though much of it, including research done at Emory University’s HERCULES Exposome Research Center, is funded by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). A grant advisor did ask for some adjustments to language in a recent progress report related to future funding as well as to abstracts that sit on the National Institutes of Health website. But so far, these requested tweaks haven’t been debilitating. Dr. Marsit, who is also the Distinguished Professor of Research and Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Research Strategy at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory, has support on the home front. “We haven’t removed anything from our website, and Emory is standing behind us researching what we want,” he shares.
Despite this, some of Dr. Marsit’s colleagues are being negatively affected. “So far there have been some of our researchers, particularly those doing climate or environmental justice work—we have seen losses across some of those awards. We are seeing it across the school,” he says.
One big loss
The Trump administration shut down a project Dr. Marsit served as a scientific advisor for—a center studying a group of Hispanic women, known as the MADRES cohort, and their children in Los Angeles. “It was focused on minority health and environmental health disparities. We are losing really important information. We might be missing out on the ability to intervene on those exposures because those discoveries won’t be made,” he says.
He is bothered by the administration’s anti-scientific contention that studies on specific racial or ethnic groups shouldn’t be done. “That’s efficient science. If you really want to understand the groups most affected by something, you have to look at the people who are affected. It doesn’t make sense to get rid of looking at environmental justice and disparities. That’s exactly how you solve the problem: by focusing on the people experiencing the problem.”
Emotional climate
The dismantling of science in America weighs heavily on the scientific community. “I am very nervous, very disheartened,” Dr. Marsit allows. Scientists live and breathe logic and data, and it’s overwhelming to have both ignored and upended so broadly. “I am a skeptic if there isn’t strong data, but where there is?! We have come so far in demonstrating that there are disparities in the way people experience the environment. Environmental justice is a thing. There are certainly certain groups that are disproportionately affected. There is objective data. To argue that that isn’t the case is very difficult for me to make sense of.”
The fear in the research community right now is pervasive—insult to injury. Dr. Marsit says, “It worries me that we’re going to lose a generation of researchers. Young people are getting nervous thinking about moving in this direction.”
The students and the future of science
Working with and advising students is one of the things Dr. Marsit has always enjoyed most about his work. Until now. “They’re afraid those careers don’t exist any longer,” he says, noting that Rollins School of Public Health is located across the street from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where historically many of its students are placed after graduation. “Those jobs are not there anymore,” he says.
Neither are jobs at state health departments. “They have lost funding that CDC sends them. They aren’t able to hire either. We have these very well-trained PhD researchers and practitioners not having positions to go into,” he laments. Some students are finding hyper-local jobs at city health departments, where, for now, funding is more stable as it isn’t typically CDC-supported. Dr. Marsit sees a silver lining here; his former students will be that much closer to the communities they’re serving as a result.
Funding today
The average person—not to mention the average young scientist—doesn’t entirely understand how funding science works or how political it can be. One thing to know is that timing of grants is critical. “Research needs to be funded now for five years and beyond.” Dr. Marsit says research funding can only be saved if the midterm elections lead to significant changes in Congress, which would likely offer the possibility of some stopgap measures. “But if this plays all the way out for four years, it will take another four years [to get back on track]. A new drug from discovery in the market is eight years. That is what we are losing,” he warns.
Scientists have long lived by and are used to grant cycles, so the current unknown is proving very distracting. “We try to do our best work and be competitive. Before, at least you felt like if you were doing good work and your science was strong, people would give you a chance to be funded and to continue the work. Now, even if you are doing great science, you can lose all your funding. It has nothing to do with the quality and rigor of the work.”
To get funding in today’s world, he adds, researchers don’t even know what they have to do.
How to support science
While Dr. Marsit insists scientists and researchers are not looking for pity, he is hoping this mass defunding of research will lead to the general public gaining a better understanding of how science works in the U.S. Dr. Marsit is all for identifying efficiencies and cutting out bureaucracy, but doing it quickly and randomly is uniquely harmful when it comes to science. He notes the CDC recently rehired environmental health workers who were slashed in April. But it’s only 20% of the people fired—not enough.
Mostly, he hopes people use this difficult time to learn and understand why investments in research are so important. “Then, advocate for those investments. Ask, Why would you want to cut research in children’s health? Why would that be a good idea?”
Tell EPA: Moms Strongly Oppose Rolling Back Mercury and Air Toxics Standards