In this editorial, Steven Z. George, PT, PhD, FAPTA, professor, Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Population Health Sciences and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, and Alan M. Jette, PT, PhD, FAPTA, professor, Boston University Sargent College of Health & Rehabilitation Science, delve into the recent disruptions in federal funding for rehabilitation research and their potential long-term impact on the field. As leaders in the Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal (PTJ), they reflect on the broader implications of policy changes that have affected research funding and highlight the importance of understanding the social, cultural, and political factors that influence scientific progress. In a time of increased political interference in research funding, the authors discuss how these shifts could hinder the continued growth of rehabilitation sciences and the vital contributions they make to public health. Through their expert analysis, they emphasize the need for the scientific community to remain actively engaged in advocating for policies that support research and innovation in rehabilitation.
Science does not occur in a vacuum. Throughout history, scientific processes and their outcomes have been influenced by social, cultural, political, and ideological factors. Interestingly, and somewhat paradoxically, scientists have often been encouraged to "stay in their lane" when discussing these external influences. However, there are times when it is crucial for scientists to contribute their expertise to ensure that decisions are made with a complete understanding of their potential consequences.
As Editors of the Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal (PTJ), we address the recent policy changes that could significantly impact the scientific landscape in the United States, particularly for the professional communities served by PTJ. The U.S. government has long supported scientific research through agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others. Congress plays a key role in providing funding and setting directives for the scope and mission of these agencies. Scientific review and funding decisions are traditionally made at the agency level, with awards granted to institutions supporting the research teams that developed and submitted the proposals.
Historically, after Congress set the budget and directives, there was minimal governmental interference once a proposal was funded. This approach, while not without flaws, helped position the U.S. as a global leader in biomedical research and provided significant economic benefits. Despite this history of success, recent actions by the new administration have drastically altered the federal government’s stance on research funding. While political influence on science has always existed in the U.S., it has not been as disruptive or damaging as the initiatives now being put into place.