Insights from a leader who has shaped science policy across academia, government, and publishing
In the complex ecosystem of scientific research, federal funding serves as the lifeblood that sustains innovation, discovery, and progress. Yet, this critical system faces perpetual challenges—political pressures, budgetary constraints, and bureaucratic hurdles—that threaten to stifle advancement.
Federal funding supports groundbreaking discoveries that transform medicine, technology, and our understanding of the world.
Scientific research funded by NIH and other agencies generates substantial economic returns and high-quality jobs.
Jeremy Berg's authority on scientific funding stems from a career that has touched nearly every facet of the research ecosystem.
Established himself as a respected scientist before moving into key leadership positions.
Oversaw one of the NIH's largest components, responsible for funding fundamental biomedical research 3 .
Guided one of the world's most prestigious scientific publications, highlighting emerging research.
Founded and directed the institute at the University of Pittsburgh, bridging basic research and clinical application 8 .
To understand Berg's concerns about research funding, one must first grasp the delicate financial mechanics of the NIH.
Approximately 80% of the NIH budget is already committed to ongoing multi-year grants and fixed costs 3 .
| Budget Change | Immediate Impact | Long-Term Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| 8.2% overall cut (sequestration) | 41% reduction in new/completing grants | Loss of early-career researchers, abandoned projects |
| Capped indirect costs | Universities subsidize more research | Reduced institutional support, staff layoffs |
| Delayed grant approvals | Labs operate on "bridge funding" | Hiring freezes, stalled projects, staff reductions |
Throughout his career, Berg has championed a scientific approach to science policy itself, treating funding mechanisms as systems to be studied, understood, and optimized through empirical evidence 3 .
Berg's analyses have yielded crucial insights into how funding systems actually operate.
| Career Stage | Success Rate | Key Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Early-Career Investigators | 15-18% | Limited track record, less preliminary data |
| Mid-Career Investigators | 20-22% | Balancing multiple responsibilities |
| Established Investigators | 25-28% | Maintaining innovation |
"Some reviewers are outstanding, writing critiques that lay out the important issues in a manner that guides Council members and program staff in making funding recommendations and helps applicants," Berg observed. "However, other reviewers do not do nearly as good a job in these areas" 3 .
Just as laboratory research requires specific tools and reagents, navigating the contemporary funding landscape demands its own set of resources.
| Tool/Resource | Function | Berg's Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Data Analysis | Understanding funding patterns and success rates | "I was sometimes surprised that relatively individuals at NIH realized how much power they had with the large amounts of data that NIH has at its disposal" 3 |
| Transparent Communication | Demystifying funding processes and policies | Berg has become "a trusted and unofficial source of information about federal research funding upheavals" 8 |
| Peer Review Feedback | Improving quality and consistency of grant evaluation | "One change would be to develop a system for providing feedback to reviewers" 3 |
| Bridge Funding Strategies | Maintaining lab operations between grants | "Most labs have a little bit of a cushion... After that they need to get funding from somewhere or they have to start not doing things or firing staff" 8 |
| Policy Advocacy | Protecting research infrastructure and support | "Informing the public about what's really going on and trying to break through some of the media siloing that's gone on is important" 8 |
Using empirical evidence to inform funding policies and practices.
Demystifying complex funding mechanisms for the research community.
Engaging with policymakers to protect research infrastructure.
In recent years, Berg's approach to science policy has taken on new urgency and found new platforms.
With over 14,000 followers on BlueSky, Berg provides real-time information about funding policies 8 .
Speaking frankly to national media about the dangers of proposed funding cuts.
Modeling how scientists can engage with political dimensions without compromising integrity.
Jeremy Berg's career exemplifies how scientific expertise and policy engagement can—and must—intersect to protect the infrastructure of discovery.
Through his roles at NIH, Science magazine, and the University of Pittsburgh, he has maintained a consistent focus on using evidence to improve how science is supported and evaluated. His work reminds us that the health of America's research enterprise depends not only on brilliant ideas and dedicated researchers, but on thoughtful, data-informed policies that sustain the ecosystem in which innovation flourishes.
"I think we just have to do what we can to figure out the best strategies to try to prevent too much damage from being done, because it's so much easier to break something down than it is to build" 8 .
In an era of unprecedented scientific opportunity coupled with persistent funding challenges, Berg's straight talk provides both a warning and a way forward—reminding us that supporting science today is an investment in the discoveries of tomorrow.