The Dismantling of Public Research Funding and the Need to Invest in a Better Future

Geographic research has improved the human condition, enhanced long-term environmental sustainability, strengthened the economy, fostered human understanding of the planet, and facilitated learning of those students engaged in the knowledge production process. While some research is funded by the private sector to specific ends, the bulk of scientific inquiry is a public good that benefits the larger society and is supported by governments whose citizenry ideally understand the long-term benefits of scientific research. While what I have presented above is the ideal, it actually works in many cases. Unfortunately, the public funding of scientific research in the United States has been willingly dismantled over the past nine months to the detriment of the academy, geography, and American society.

In 2010, the National Research Council published Understanding the changing planet: Strategic directions for the geographical sciences (written by a committee chaired by former AAG president Alec Murphy). This report set out an ambitious research agenda for the discipline, articulating big questions for geographers to tackle with significant societal impacts. Geographers in the US and around the world have aggressively worked on those questions over the past 15 years (relating to the environment, population, health, food, and migration to name a few) and arguably made the world a better place. I truly believe that a society that supports scholarly research is investing in the future and acting on the belief that we can do better. To arbitrarily defund research is to not look forward, to not have hope for a better world, and to doubt our capacity to enhance human understanding.

A society that supports scholarly research is investing in the future and acting on the belief that we can do better.”

As a fundamentally field-based discipline, geographers often need external funding to do the work we do. For example, in July I was fortunate to be in rural Tanzania with three research students and local university partners trying to better understand the food and nutrition security implications of primary schools that employ agroecological practices on their farms to produce food for their lunch programs. While our findings will hopefully have implications for the way we understand environmental sustainability, agroecology and nutrition security, just as important was the development of future scholars and international scientific exchange that was a byproduct of this process. This was a pilot project supported by seed money from my university and for which I had intended to seek external support, a prospect that now feels increasingly unlikely as the current administration has bludgeoned the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies that support scientific research. My story is just one of many that have rippled across our discipline, cutting short the knowledge production process, the training of future scholars, and transnational scientific collaboration.

Cuts to scientific research funding in recent months have been devastating. The White House’s proposed budget for FY26 for the National Science Foundation (NSF) would reduce the agency’s budget by 55 percent, bringing its annual budget down to $3.6 billion from the $9 billion appropriated in FY2024, and a similar range of funds available in 2025. This latest proposed cut was preceded by the termination of hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding that had previously been awarded.

• In February, the AAG published an open letter decrying the devastating cuts to the NSF’s Human-Environment and Geographical Sciences (HEGS) Program (while geographers have been successful obtaining grants from a number of NSF programs, this is the flagship program for the discipline). Then in early March, the AAG was one of 48 learned societies signing an open letter asking congress to protect science.
• Proposed cuts to the U.S. State Department’s Fulbright Program will entirely eliminate it and in June the oversight board of this prestigious program resigned after political appointees cancelled the awards of almost 200 American professors who were scheduled to go oversees to undertake research and teaching, and put in jeopardy those of another 1200 foreign scholars who were to receive support for academic exchanges in the US.
• The U.S. Department of Education has cancelled this year’s Fulbright-Hays Program that has supported the international research of U.S. professors and students for over 60 years. The loss of this program was part of a larger executive action to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, with the AAG signing on to a joint statement against such actions in March 2025.

These are just some of the cuts to federal programs that support geographic scholarship. Of course, research costs money, and some research projects are more impactful than others, but to indiscriminately cut research funding across the broad undermines the prospect of a better future. Important advances in science are often generational in nature. Rarely do the biggest breakthroughs come in a single year, decade, or even career. Research funding is the fundamental connector that sustains research across generations. It’s not just a feel-good activity to use research funding for training future scholars: it is the lifeline of discovery, innovation, and progress.

Judiciously allocated public funding is critical to the advancement of scientific understanding, to the careers of geographers and to the training of their students. Over the course of my career, for example, I have benefitted from four federal research grants, two from the NSF and two from the Fulbright-Hays Program (likely placing me somewhere in the middle of what is typical for an academic geographer). When I was younger, these grants helped launch my career and as I grew older, they helped me train future scholars. The competitive application process helped me refine my research questions and methodology, and subsequent service on several NSF panels allowed me to better understanad the care and thought that went into prioritizing which type of research to support with scarce public dollars. From my time on such panels, I still remember Tom Baerwald (former NSF Program Director and AAG past president) and colleagues showing us the research innovation S curve (or the Isserman curve), slowly starting with basic research and the trial and error search for good questions (A and B), to the steep climb and rapid innovation phase (C), to the tapering off and research saturation plateau (D and E) (see figure 1). Our task, as a scientific panel, was to identify sound projects situated at the start of the rapid innovation phase. It was an extremely rigorous process, led by panels of faculty working on a mostly pro-bono basis, and with many more good projects on offer than NSF would be able to fund.

Geography needs to more strongly make a case for government support of knowledge production as central to a better future. Communicating the value of scientific research to broader publics is important as scholarship and universities have become targets in the US culture wars. Part of this will be about articulating a geographic research agenda for the future. What are the key questions moving forward that geographers are particularly well equipped to answer and how will geographical perspectives on those challenges help everyday people and the environment? It has been 15 years since the NRC published Understanding the changing planet. Despite the strong anti-intellectual political currents of our time, now is the moment to more forcefully articulate the value of geographic inquiry and a research agenda for a better a better future.

Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at [email protected] to enable a constructive discussion.