Although speakers didn’t use megaphones to amplify their voice, the organizers of UC Santa Cruz’s “Stand Up for Science” sent a clear message: 

“Science is for everyone.” 

Joining other demonstrations nationwide, about 400 UCSC students, faculty, staff and research workers participated in a “Stand Up for Science” on March 7. Organized in just a week through email and word of mouth, the protest attracted many who opposed federal threats to research, science and education. At noon, two rallies started at UCSC: One at Coastal Campus and one in front of the Science and Engineering Library. 

Students, faculty, staff and research workers gathered at Coastal Campus [Photo 1 by Kyle James Allemand] and in front of the Science and Engineering Library [Photo 2 by Reggie Sasaki].

Layoffs, funding freezes and cuts to DEI programs in the federal government have made significant impacts on the field of science. Since January, the Trump administration has attempted to slash many sources of federal funds for research and academia, such as grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH). 

Retired history of consciousness professor Donna Haraway believes that because the Trump administration is targeting scientific research, everyone, including scientists, has an obligation to become activists.

“Science, now more than ever, needs to be in the forefront of saying, ‘No we will not do that, we will not be moved,’” she said.

How does federal funding affect UCSC?

NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), federal agencies that fund academic science within the United States, were among those targeted by the Trump administration. Academic research funded by these organizations accounts for the vast majority of health research conducted worldwide.

From 2011 to 2022, 53 percent of all combined UC research funding came from federal sources. The NIH is the largest funder of UC research, and provided a total of 23 percent of all research funding at UCSC in 2024.

On Feb. 7, the NIH issued a new policy that caps “indirect” research expenses for grants, which go to lab maintenance, utilities, equipment and non-research support staff. On average, UC indirect research costs sit between 53 and 57 percent of allotted research funding per campus. The NIH policy would cap these costs to 15 percent.

Mark Carr, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, spoke on how the proposed cap affects student’s abilities to participate in research, whether they are undergraduate or graduates.

“It’s going to reduce not just the ability of students to pursue their aspirations to become the next generation of scientists, but also the intellectual and expertise capacity of future generations,” Carr said.

Mark Carr, professor of marine ecology in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, addresses the crowd regarding the importance of federal funding. Photo by Kyle James Allemand.

Anne Kapuscinski, professor of environmental studies at UCSC, spoke to the crowd at Coastal campus as the chair of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a national nonprofit organization that has been mobilizing to protect science against the Trump administration. In her speech, she outlined the far-reaching effects of Trump’s policies.

“This isn’t about just doing a few targeted budget cuts; this is about trying to make the system collapse,” Kapuscinski said. “We are going to feel it throughout the nation, even in the lives of people who don’t normally think about science, who don’t realize the science that goes behind the health care that they get, the fact that their food is safe and that they have a diversity of food.”

Director of Coastal Science & Policy Program and Professor of Environmental Studies at UCSC Anne Kapuscinski addresses the crowd outside UCSC Seymour Center, speaking to the importance of federal research and informed policy. Photo by Kyle James Allemand.

On March 5, a federal judge temporarily blocked the NIH policy from going into effect, while a coalition of states and research institutions, including the California Attorney General, are suing the federal government for the drastic funding cuts. The UC made a statement backing the restraining order, and UC President Michael V. Drake wrote in support of NIH research.

“The University of California leads the nation in NIH funding, and I am deeply concerned by these cuts,” said President Drake in his statement. “If implemented, this would prove catastrophic for the scientific community and countless Americans hoping for new cures and treatments that result from federally funded research. We will continue to do everything we can to advocate vociferously for science, for our researchers, and for patients as we call for these guidelines to be rescinded.”

Despite the restraining order, grant proposals are still not being reviewed, and it is unclear whether grants will be approved before the end of the fiscal year in October. Although NIH funding has yet to be slashed at UCSC, the legal back and forth between the Trump administration, institutions and states brings fear into research spaces. 

Ash O’Farrell, a bioinformatics analyst at the UCSC Genomics Institute, said the unclear status of funds has made their work more difficult and less effective. They reported uncertainty around whether certain meetings can be held, whether data can arrive in time or even at all and capacity to hire graduate students. 

Ash O’Farrell speaking to the crowd gathered at the Science and Engineering Library. Photo by Reggie Sasaki.

Despite the fact that the NIH policy has been held up in court, O’Farrell responded with certainty about its impact on research.

“100 percent it’s already affected,” they responded. “It’s been affecting it pretty much as soon as that confusion started. In my position currently I am still able to do things, but not as effectively as before.”

Defending Diversity

In addition to worries about federal funding, many Stand Up for Science participants expressed their support for diversity in the sciences and in academia.

“DEI: it’s not an acronym, it’s a practice to make science more just,” said Donna Haraway,  retired professor of history of consciousness, to the crowd at the S&E library.

Jacqueline Kimmey, an assistant professor of microbiology and environmental toxicology, has a personal stake in preserving support for DEI in higher education. 

Caption: Signs from rallies at Science and Engineering Library (1), and UCSC’s Coastal Campus research center (2,3).

[LEFT] Photo by Reggie Sasaki. [RIGHT] Photos by Kyle James Allemand.

“I would not be here if not for those initiatives,”  Kimmey said. “I was part of many diversity initiatives through undergrad, through graduate school, as a postdoc, and it breaks my heart to see those being canceled and taken away.”

Across multiple speakers, the same message was delivered: Everyone benefits when funding is directed toward diversity in science. 

“By focusing on re-segregating who works in these offices and who gets educated and trained by our universities, this administration is limiting who contributes to and who benefits from all of this expertise and policy,” said Needhi Bhalla, professor of molecular, cell, and developmental biology at the gathering at Science and Engineering Library. “Limiting who gets to participate in science and policy making has direct consequences on who gets to be saved.”

At Stand Up for Science, the fear of losing funding, losing careers, losing livelihoods was just as present as the anger toward the Trump administration and its figureheads, like Elon Musk. To turn these reactions into action, Tabatha Wells believes that scientists must be political.

An attendee at Science and Engineering Library holds a sign calling for the protection of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for monitoring oceanic and atmospheric conditions. Like many other federal agencies, NOAA has been targeted in the Trump Administration’s mass cutting of federal jobs.

“All of these emotions have to be translated into change and into movement, and the best way is for scientists who are actually doing the research to be able to articulate and communicate that with everybody,” Wells said. “Because if they don’t, it’s not only scientists who are at risk, it’s our entire population, it’s our entire nation, it’s our entire world.”