The U.S. midterm elections are just a few short days away and the need for a reset in terms of federal support for research has never been clearer. The Society for Scholarly Publishing’s (SSP’s) newly formed Advocacy Committee, led by co-chairs Beth Craanen and Tim Lloyd, aims to help support responsible advocacy by developing resources, educational programs, and guidance that strengthen our community’s ability to engage on issues affecting scholarly publishing. As you can imagine, U.S. federal attacks on research are the topic of many of our conversations. We therefore asked the committee to build on previous posts on this important issue (including by committee members Darla Henderson, the Scholarly Kitchen chefs, and the wider Scholarly Kitchen community) and to share their own personal thoughts on what changes they hope to see.

Jennifer Regala, Senior Director, Publishing and Product Development, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists

As someone who has spent my career working closely with scholarly societies, publishers, researchers, and clinicians, including my current role as the Senior Director, Publishing and Product Development, at the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the change I would most like to see after the midterms is a renewed commitment to stable, long-term federal support for research. With a great big emphasis on the word stable.

Predictability is extremely important to what we do. I want our representatives in government to understand that the predictability of supporting research is what builds the foundation of trust in our scholarly publishing ecosystem. Scientific discovery happens over years, sometimes decades, and researchers need confidence that support will remain in place long enough to study and document complex challenges. I want our government to nurture a research environment that encourages and rewards the scientific method. It’s clear in our current administration that constant uncertainty is slowing innovation, discouraging early-career researchers, and making long-term planning difficult for institutions and organizations across the research ecosystem. We are all burned out, but we remain committed to trust in science. I’d like to see our government join us in that commitment.

Funding research is only part of the equation. Discoveries create impact when they are rigorously reviewed, disseminated, preserved, and translated into knowledge that practitioners, policymakers, and the public can trust. Scholarly societies and publishers play a critical role in that process, helping ensure that research remains credible, accessible, and part of a lasting scientific record. In a world of AI that seems to be running amok, we cannot afford to remain divided when it comes to real human effort to advance the health and well-being of our country and beyond.

The bottom line: Science and research should not be politicized. They must be fully supported and protected as a priority by all policymakers.

Yael Fitzpatrick, Independent Consultant

Like a lot of people, I have a knot of dread in my stomach with the US midterm elections around the corner. Beyond fears of the actual results not matching the “official” results, something that keeps me up at night is the thought of what has already been irreparably destroyed in this country, and what might still be fixable. Yes, so much important funding and research has been cut off at the knees, and much likely cannot be brought back to where it was before. But I hope there are large swaths of the currently stymied work that can be revived.

 But… we are exhausted. We are collectively suffering from news fatigue. The last few years have been one traumatic event after another. Some believe that has been very deliberate on the part of the current administration, to wear down our desire and ability to react and respond. So I would love to see redoubled efforts to combat that fatigue, to reenergize people to act, to fight. By increasing awareness of what CAN be revived. By sharing relatable stories of the impact of scientific research — what can be made better, and what is lost when the work disappears. By making people know in their core that even if they’re exhausted, this isn’t a “not my problem” but rather something that affects everyone directly, and thus the need to fight for research support is everybody’s responsibility.

 On a personal note, I am a longtime resident of the District of Columbia. Years ago I made a conscious decision to live in DC despite the fact that it would mean choosing taxation without representation, in large part because it was important to me to live in a jurisdiction where my values align with the majority of my neighbors. The lack of voting representation in Congress hits very hard these days, so to everybody reading this who has been able to call their elected officials to request their support for scientific research, you have my sincere thanks.

Rebecca McLeod, Managing DIrector, Harvard Data Science Review, Harvard Data Science Initiative

Following the midterms, I would like to see sustained, predictable federal support for research across the full research lifecycle, including the infrastructure that helps make findings accessible and usable. My career in scholarly communications, where I have worked closely with researchers, and my current role at a research institution, have shown me that progress depends not only on funding discovery but also on strong systems for communicating and sharing findings. Reliable support would help investigators plan for the long term, train the next generation, and ensure that publicly funded research can inform further inquiry and benefit society.

Emma Wilson, Director of Publishing, Royal Society of Chemistry

As a passionate believer that research is a team game, played on a global stage, across borders and disciplines, what I would most like to see following the midterms is a commitment to predictable, long-term federal research funding, with funding decisions guided by scientific expertise and peer review.

For me, that certainty gives researchers the confidence to pursue ambitious questions, allows institutions to plan for the long term, and ensures that discoveries and innovations turn into benefits for society. Tackling complex challenges depends on collaboration and access to knowledge: researchers cannot do it in isolation. So, decisions that weaken a world-renowned research system have consequences far beyond national borders, disrupting the scientific ecosystem and innovation worldwide.

Matt Giampoala, Vice President, Publications, American Geophysical Union  

The last couple of years have been extremely disruptive for scientific research. Executive orders and other actions from this Administration have led to the dismantling of infrastructure, disruption of longitudinal studies, removal of critical datasets, thwarting of international collaboration, and damage to the pipeline for our next generation of researchers, just for a start.  

Even with the discord of the current moment, there continues to be strong, bipartisan support for investment in science research, and Congress has continued to appropriate federal funding for research at levels above the President’s budget requests. Yet those funds are not being allocated and administered as approved by Congress. The National Science Foundation, for example, has $1 billion in fiscal year 2026 funding left over – all money that should have been spent on valuable research efforts. 

Whatever the leadership and political mix of the next Congress, the House and Senate should step up their efforts to ensure that science funding is not just appropriated but actually spent as intended, and to stop the destruction of critical portions of the scientific enterprise. As others have pointed out, stability in our funding and infrastructure is critical for long-term scientific progress and for discoveries to translate to the benefit of the American public and the entire globe. And we know it is possible – when the Administration moved rapidly to remove ocean observing equipment essential for climate and fisheries decisions, a Senate resolution was so bipartisan and forceful that the Administration reversed course. 

Beyond funding and equipment, Congress should also prioritize the human capital so essential to our scientific enterprise. That will mean working to rebuild scientific expertise lost from our government and universities, broadening the ability for students and young professionals to take part in science, and re-establishing the U.S. as a beacon for international students and a trusted partner for international science collaboration. While national security concerns must always be taken into account, academic research will thrive and produce the most benefit for all people when we reduce unnecessary barriers to collaboration across borders and we work to include people of all backgrounds in our research systems. 

Alice Meadows

There are many, many changes I’d like to see the administration make to their support (or lack thereof) for US federal research. However, following my post yesterday about a new report on the impact of US government censorship on public health, it will come as no surprise that my number one wish would be for a rolling back of this censorship in all its forms. It’s tempting to think of censorship simply as book bans – but they are just one very visible example, and one which therefore gets a lot of attention. Much more insidious are the attacks on academic freedom; the banning of hundreds of words and phrases from grant applications and publications; the requirements for researchers to seek permission to collaborate with colleagues overseas or to attend conferences; and, of course, the slashing of budgets for research that doesn’t align with the administration’s priorities. What’s worse, collectively all of this censorship has already led to self-censorship by both individuals and institutions – an insidious development that could take years if not decades to reverse.

Note: some contributors to this post used AI to help refine their language.