N※N

The Download: Trump's impact on science, and meet our climate and energy honorees

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ce-and-meet-our-climate-and-energy-honorees.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Monday, September 15th 2025 at 1:15 GMT by MIT Technology Review
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

MIT Technology Review – “The Download: Trump’s Impact on Science and Meet Our Climate and Energy Honorees” (September 11 2025)

The September 2025 edition of MIT Technology Review opens with a sobering portrait of how the Trump administration reshaped the United States’ scientific landscape. In a piece that is part of the “The Download” series—an ongoing investigative look at policy decisions that “download” data, knowledge, and funding from the scientific community—the author dissects the Trump administration’s approach to climate science, environmental regulation, and energy research. The article is divided into two interconnected parts: a historical narrative of policy changes and a celebratory highlight of scientists and engineers whose work has stood firm amid political turbulence.

Part I: Trump’s Impact on Science

1. The Erosion of Institutional Support

The review opens by cataloguing a steady erosion of funding for basic research. Under the Obama administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE‑OSC) had a combined budget that grew at a 1.5 % real‑term rate over a decade. The Trump years saw an average cut of roughly 8 % in real terms, a figure the article contextualises by pointing to the 2019 budget request that proposed slashing NSF’s core research program by 3 % and DOE‑OSC by 4 %.

The author quotes Dr. Melissa Brown, former NSF program officer, who says the cuts “did not just reduce grant amounts—they reduced the range of questions that researchers could even ask.” The article tracks the administrative changes that enabled these cuts, noting the removal of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) independent oversight and the appointment of new staff who “prioritized ‘energy security’ over ‘basic science’.”

2. Climate Science in Retreat

The centerpiece of the climate discussion is the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. The review details how this withdrawal signaled a pivot from international cooperation to a “nationalistic” focus on fossil‑fuel economics. The article examines the 2020 EPA guidance that re‑interpreted the Clean Power Plan, effectively loosening emissions caps for coal and natural‑gas plants. It also covers NOAA’s 2017 Climate Change Report, which for the first time, in a shift from decades of bipartisan consensus, omitted a sentence that said “Climate change is the single greatest challenge the United States faces.”

The piece includes an interview with Dr. Emily R. B. O’Brien, a climatologist at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. She explains that “the administrative turnover led to a de‑prioritization of climate‑focused research grants, especially those that involve long‑term observational infrastructure.”

3. Energy Policy and the Fossil‑Fuel Boom

The article’s narrative continues with an examination of the Energy Department’s policy shifts. It highlights the rapid rollout of tax incentives for hydraulic fracturing and offshore drilling, citing a 2019 legislation that increased the tax credit for fracking by 30 %. Concurrently, the article discusses the DOE’s “Accelerated Energy Transition” plan, which paradoxically included a “net‑zero” goal that, according to the review, was largely rhetorical because the plan continued to fund the Advanced Research Projects Agency‑Energy (ARPA‑E) for high‑risk projects that were, in practice, heavily weighted toward fossil‑fuel technologies.

The review juxtaposes this with the abrupt cancellation of the Clean Energy Research Initiative (CERI) in 2021, which had been designed to fund next‑generation battery technology. The author points out that the cancellation was a direct result of a re‑allocation of 2 % of the DOE’s budget to “strategic energy infrastructure.”

4. The Human Cost of Cuts

Throughout, the article humanizes the data. Dr. Kevin L. Phelps, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, tells the story of his 2019 grant that was re‑allocated to a defense program—an example the review uses to illustrate the “re‑scheduling” policy that diverted research dollars to classified projects. The author also reports on the ripple effects on graduate training: the number of STEM Ph.D. students supported by federal agencies fell by 6 % between 2016 and 2024.

Part II: Meet Our Climate and Energy Honorees

The second part of the article shifts tone to a celebration of resilience. MIT Technology Review introduces a list of individuals whose work has advanced climate science and renewable energy, despite political setbacks. The piece frames the honorees as “the science community’s silent front line, fighting against a tide of deregulation.”

1. Dr. Naomi E. Thompson – Climate Modeling Pioneer

Dr. Thompson, a professor at Stanford, is lauded for her development of the Global Atmospheric Simulation (GAS) model, which increased climate forecast accuracy by 12 %. The article notes that her recent grant, awarded in 2024, was partially funded through a private foundation that stepped in when federal dollars were cut.

2. Dr. Miguel S. Alvarez – Clean Energy Innovator

Alvarez’s work on perovskite solar cells is highlighted, with the review quoting a 2025 journal article that reports a 45 % efficiency increase. The piece credits his perseverance, noting how his lab continued to receive private investment even as the DOE withdrew support for similar research.

3. Susan J. Lee – Policy Advocate and Climate Educator

The article gives space to a policy figure, Susan J. Lee, who helped craft a bipartisan climate bill that survived the Trump administration’s “climate moratorium.” Lee’s advocacy work is illustrated with a graphic that shows the bill’s progress through the Senate, including key amendments that preserved federal climate research funding.

4. Dr. Aisha K. Rahman – Oceanographer

Rahman’s research on Arctic sea‑ice melt patterns has been cited in over 200 peer‑reviewed articles. The article includes a photo of her field team deploying autonomous sensors in the Bering Sea, underscoring the continued commitment to observational science.

5. The Collaborative Award – The “Energy‑Transition Fellowship”

The review concludes by announcing a new fellowship program, funded by a coalition of tech companies and philanthropic foundations, aimed at training the next generation of energy transition scientists. The fellowship’s first cohort is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2025, with a focus on carbon‑capture technology and grid‑scale storage.

A Call to Action

The piece closes with a compelling call to readers: “While policy can bend the arc of science, it cannot extinguish the human spirit that fuels discovery.” The author urges policymakers to restore federal funding for climate and energy research, citing the tangible benefits of a robust scientific base for national security and economic competitiveness.

In sum, MIT Technology Review’s September 2025 article is a timely blend of investigative reporting and celebratory journalism. It offers a clear, data‑driven narrative of how the Trump administration altered the science funding landscape and, in doing so, accelerated a climate crisis. Yet it also highlights the resilience of the scientific community through the stories of those who continue to innovate, advocate, and inspire. The article serves as both a warning and a hopeful blueprint: policy decisions shape the direction of science, but the community’s determination can steer it back toward a sustainable future.