Chairs of 36 US chemistry departments call to restore funding

A coalition of 36 chemistry department chairs from US universities has published an open letter in Science highlighting their concern over recent federal policy decisions impacting science (2025, DOI: 10.1126/science.adx8085).

The letter calls out decisions to decrease overhead rates, reduce funding for science, lay off program managers at scientific agencies, and restrict efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion as detrimental to chemistry research in the US. It states that “failing to support the scientific enterprise will erode decades of progress in research and innovation, ceding leadership in key technological areas to global competitors.”

The authors of the letter are listed alphabetically, and the letter states that the authors’ opinions do not reflect those of their home universities.

Amanda Morris, chair of the chemistry department at Virginia Tech, took the lead in drafting and organizing support for the letter. “We didn’t want the letter to be political,” she says. “We wanted to make an economic stance for why chemical research is critical to the United States and our world prowess as a scientific leader.”

The letter cites American Chemistry Council data that say the chemical industry contributes over $600 billion annually to the US economy and supports over 4 million jobs. But maintaining stable research funding for academic labs is critical for sustaining this economic output, according to the letter’s authors.

Peter B. Armentrout, chair of the chemistry department at the University of Utah and signee of the letter, says that recent policy decisions “may have cost savings in the short term, but it’s going to cause long-term damage to the ability of the United States to perform scientific research and to lead in scientific research.”

According to Morris, earlier drafts of the letter included even more signees, but some ultimately removed their names from the final letter because of university policies or fear of retaliation. “The support for the letter and the message was actually much larger,” she says.

Armentrout says that while signing the letter comes with “the possibility that you’re putting a target on your back,” he thinks “it’s important enough in this case that I decided that I didn’t care.” But he acknowledges that he is in a more comfortable position than other colleagues. “I’m old enough now that if everything goes to hell in a handbasket, I can retire quite comfortably. And so perhaps that enters into my fortitude here,” he says. “I know that’s not true of everyone that signed the letter.”

Morris hopes that the letter’s publication will let those who are working in chemistry know that leaders in the field have their backs. “We hear from the faculty, we hear from our students, and we support them,” Morris says. “I think that they’re looking for someone to stand up and communicate the concern that they have about what this will do for the economy, what this will do for education, what this will do for chemical innovation.”

But the authors are less optimistic that the letter will have much impact on those in government who are responsible for the new policies. “I don’t honestly believe it'll touch the administration at all. What I’m hopeful for is that it might be something Congress pays attention to,” Armentrout says.

The letter is published in the same issue of Science as another letter calling for institutions to protect transgender scientists (DOI: 10.1126/science.ady0962) and comes just over a week after an open letter signed by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists was sent to NIH director Jay Bhattacharya, calling on him to reverse several policy decisions that impact NIH staff and the research the agency funds. A letter in support of the NIH staff was published at the same time on Stand Up For Science, and as of June 18, over 60 Nobel laureates and 27,000 other people have added their names.