Sadly, largely due to the media’s lack of interest in science and the drop in the number of journalists able to cover such a round, one of the most important stories about science — the Trump destruction of science — is largely being neglected.

Fortunately, the specialist media — such as Nature and some commentators — have been reporting just how devastating the impact of the Trump administration has been.

This month Nature (2 May) has reported that the National Science Foundation has halted funding indefinitely and that grants will be screened for “alignment with agency priorities” – code for abiding by Trump MAGA ideology, rather than scientific rigour. In April, NSF staff were told to “stop awarding all funding actions until further notice".

Staff were told they must screen grant proposals for “topics and activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities". Proposals not in alignment must be returned to applicants. Basically, peer review has been replaced by ideological review. So far, about 1040 proposals have been terminated, depriving researchers and their institutions of US$739 million.

Given the disaster of Trump’s last efforts in pandemic policy (bleach injections anyone?), grants which would lead to ways to predict viruses that pose pandemic threats look like being frozen.

The proposed Trump budget for 2026 will see the NSF funding reduced by 55% compared with 2025 while the National Institutes of Health will face a 44% cut. Robert F. Kennedy Jr has also made savage cuts at the National Institutes of Health, there are budget cuts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Trump is attacking America’s world leading research universities – in the name of ending wokeness.

In his regular newsletter, Paul Krugman (3 May) said: “Why should those who aren’t scientists care? In the 21st century, since it isn’t some esoteric intellectual affairs but the US’ foundation of social and economic progress. And no, we can’t expedite the private sector to fill the gap left by loss of government support. Basic research is a public good: it generates real benefits, but those benefits can’t be monetised because everyone can make use of the knowledge gained.”

Climate change research is also under fire. Nature (7 May) reported that half of the children born in 2020 would face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves over their lifetime – even under conservative projections of how the climate will change. If more pessimistic estimates are used, this rises to 92% of today’s five-year-olds and compares with only 16% of people born in 1960 under any future climate scenario.

All told, around 120 million children born in 2020 will be affected.

Yet the Trump administration and various Australian figures — from Tony Abbott to John Howard — are also heavily into climate denial. In contrast, of course, the Albanese Government is not into climate denial, but is rather meekly proposing actions which will be inadequate. Fortunately, the market is driving the uptake of renewable energy demonstrating that there will soon be no need for coal and absolutely no need for nuclear power stations.

However, the problem involves more than just moving away from fossil fuels. Emma Lawrence, who studies mental health and climate change at the Imperial College of London, says that as well as moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible to limit climate change, it is also important for communities to make changes to protect future generations from heat by planting trees that create shade, improving housing and providing cool spaces where people can shelter in heatwaves.

Krugman points out that since 1900, Americans have won more Nobel Prizes in sciences than any other nationality although it does benefit from a larger population as well as its once significant funding of science. The US has had 125 winners in that time with the next highest national tallies being from Britain and Germany – each with 50.