NSF’s Impact on Science and Education: A Personal Reflection

In the summer of 1963, I traveled from Boston to Chicago to attend a National Science Foundation Summer Institute for science teachers at the Illinois Institute of Technology in PSSC Phyics, the first of many alphabet science curriculum projects.  I was a young teacher eager to improve my understanding of science and become a better educator. At the time, I could not have imagined how profoundly that experience would shape the rest of my life.

That summer changed the trajectory of my career.  

Three years later, in 1966, I received an NSF Academic Year Institute Fellowship at The Ohio State University. The fellowship allowed me to pursue advanced graduate study in science & science education, work that eventually led to my Ph.D. Looking back, I can see a direct line from that fellowship to everything that followed: my years as a professor at Georgia State University, my work as a curriculum developer and researcher, and my career as an author. But this experience also introduced me to the nature of research in science education. Ohio State had a very active and large Ph.D. program, and everywhere I went, I bumped into someone working on their dissertation. Here I was introduced to the culture of science and science education.

The National Science Foundation did not simply fund programs. It opened doors.

Career Path Enabled by NSF

Figure 2. NSF Investment and My Career Path

• 1963 — NSF Summer Institute, Illinois Institute of Technology
• 1966 — NSF Academic Year Fellowship, Ohio State University
• 1969 — Ph.D. in Science Education
• 1972-1974 — NSF Curriculum Projects at Florida State University
• 1970, 1985 —NSF Grants at Georgia State University
• 1983 – 2000 — Soviet – American Exchange Program, Global Thinking Project
• 1969 – 2026 — Author, Researcher, and Science Educator

As my career developed, I continued to experience the NSF’s impact firsthand. While at Florida State University, I served as a writer for two NSF-funded science curriculum projects, ISCS, and ISIS. Those projects sought to improve science teaching and learning at a time when educators across the country were rethinking how science should be taught in schools. Inquiry-based science teaching emerged. Later, as a professor at Georgia State University, I received NSF grants that supported my own work in science education.

The foundation’s support touched every stage of my professional life. It helped me grow as a teacher. It helped me earn a doctorate. My work was supported as a researcher and professor. Curriculum projects that reached classrooms far beyond the universities from where they were developed.

My story is not unusual.

In 1969, while I was still at OSU, I was the graduate assistant on the NSF Academic Year Institue, I received a call from Mel Webb, a science teacher in the Atlanta Public Schools. He had questions about his application to the Institute. I told him he had been accepted and the letter and information folder would be arriving to him very soon. 

When I finished OSU I took the position of Assistant Professor of science education at Atlanta’s Georgia State University.  Mel Webb, when he finished his Ph.D, returned to Atlanta and took a position at Clark-Atlanta University Assistant Professor of Science Education.  We each had thirty plus year careers in Atlanta, worked together on NSF grants, and became friends. Many others can add to this story, or write their own.  The point is that thousands of science (and mathematics teachers) were NSF graduates of one kind of institute or another¹. 

Shaping Futures

In the 1970s Mel Webb opened the doors for Black students and teachers to the support available through NSF funding. Mel Webb (History Makers Bio) led the way in American science education for Black educators and students. Mel’s grants were funded by NSF and his work in Atlanta at Clark-Atlanta University went on for decades. He was one of three science educators that I featured in a post last year. Here is a brief introduction:

In the late 1960s and 1970s, a small group of educators quietly laid the groundwork. This was before “STEM pipelines” or “broadening participation” entered the federal lexicon. They were not Washington power brokers. They were teachers, curriculum innovators, and researchers. They understood science education as both a public good and a civil right. Marjorie Gardner, Mary Budd Rowe, and Melvin Webb were three of these educators. They helped to shape the trajectory of the National Science Foundation (NSF) toward inclusion. This was achieved long before the agency had language for it. I was fortunate to know them, and indeed work them on different projects.

For generations, the National Science Foundation has quietly helped build America’s scientific and educational infrastructure. It has funded discoveries that transformed medicine, technology, agriculture, and environmental science. Teachers, graduate students, and young researchers were supported. It has invested in ideas whose value often became clear only years later.

21st Century Support

In the 21st Century, NSF continued supporting research ande development in science education. A contemporary science educator that has created a profound research program at Georgia State University with support from the NSF is Dr. Natalie King, Associate Professor of Science Eduction. She has established a research program that in Equity in STEM, Black women and girls in science, and urban science education. Dr. King received NSF’s Alan T. Waterman Award in 2023 for her research. In her lecture when she received the award, she said this about her current work, and the future:

In this lecture, Natalie S. King, Ph.D., shares her commitment to advancing Black girls in STEM education, explores the role of curricula and teacher diversity in promoting equity, and provides insights on how she establishes and maintains community-based programs through research-practice partnerships. King’s research is grounded in storytelling to elevate the voices of those who have been silenced, misunderstood, or misrepresented. She argues that there is hope for a promising future to broaden perspectives of what it means to do STEM, who can participate in these disciplines, and who is acknowledged as contributors.

As I’ve pointed out, NSF will not accept grant proposals that have to do with DEI, equity, ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.” All awards that “are not aligned” with NSF’s mission on any of these front were terminated. Grant proposals focusing on these ideas will not be accepted for review. There is currently no public information or official announcements confirming that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has terminated or altered Dr. Natalie King’s specific research grants at Georgia State University (GSU) due to recent policy changes. Dr. King’s work should be funded to foster a future that involves all students in science exploration and discovery.

Areas Historically Supported by NSF

Figure 3. What NSF Supports

• Basic Research
• STEM Education
• Graduate Fellowships
• Climate and Ocean Research
• Engineering and Technology
• Computing and Artificial Intelligence

That is why I view the current assault on the NSF with alarm. Here is a starting point.

The Trump administration has undertaken a dramatic restructuring of the agency. All twenty-two members of the National Science Board—the independent body established by Congress to oversee the foundation’s long-term scientific mission—have been dismissed. More than a billion dollars in grants have been frozen or terminated. Hundreds of active research projects have been canceled. New grant awards have slowed dramatically. The administration has proposed cutting the agency’s budget by more than half, a reduction that would cripple major areas of scientific research.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) eliminated and defunded research focused on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), climate science, and misinformation/disinformation. These changes were part of a massive restructuring effort. Ninety percent of the grants that were cancelled in 2025 were DEI related. Jonathan Schwabish, Judah Axelrod‘s article does a deep dive into NSF’s effect on cancelled grants. Here is the way they described the nature of cancelled grants:

Overall, we find that canceled contracts are far more likely to include key words in the DEI, race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and governance and policy categories than grants that haven’t been canceled. In fact, nearly 90 percent of all canceled projects included at least one word in the DEI category compared with about half of projects that have not been canceled, which appears to be consistent with NSF’s new stated priorities and the administration’s stated goals².

The agency also specifically halted doctoral-dissertation grants in fields like anthropology, geography, and linguistics. For example, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, it was reported that the US National Science Foundation is planning to remove hundreds of ocean monitoring instruments from four sites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Scientists use data from the observational network to measure and track ocean climate variability, biogeochemical cycles, marine food webs, and coastal dynamics and ecosystems, including fisheries³. 

The administration has also moved to place greater political control over grantmaking, giving political appointees increased authority over funding decisions that have traditionally been guided by peer review and scientific merit.

Illustrative Summary of Reported Changes

These actions may sound like bureaucratic changes, but their consequences are real. Research projects are being abandoned. Young scientists are reconsidering careers in research. Long-term studies of climate, oceans, and ecosystems are being dismantled. Universities are losing support for programs that train future generations of scientists and educators. Figure 5 shows that NSF’s 2026 budget will be half of what it was in previous years.

What troubles me most is that these decisions reflect a profound misunderstanding of how science works.

Scientific progress is rarely immediate. The most important discoveries often emerge from years of patient investigation. The benefits of educational programs may not become visible for decades. When I attended that NSF Summer Institute in 1963, no one could have measured its ultimate impact. No one could have predicted that it would lead me to doctoral study, university teaching, curriculum development, research grants, and a lifetime devoted to science education.

Yet that is exactly how public investment in science works. A fellowship awarded today may produce a researcher who makes an important discovery twenty years from now. A grant supporting a curriculum project may inspire students who become tomorrow’s scientists, engineers, physicians, and teachers.

The Long-Term Impact of Investment

NSF Investment Today
1. Education & Research Opportunities
2. Scientific Discovery  
3. Innovation & Economic Growth      
4. Benefits to Future Generations

The NSF has always understood this long view. It has been one of the few institutions in American government designed to think beyond election cycles and partisan politics.

My concern about the future of the NSF is therefore deeply personal. When I look back on my own career, I see the imprint of NSF at every stage. The opportunities it provided helped shape my professional life and, by extension, the lives of many students, teachers, and readers with whom I have worked over the years.

I often wonder how many careers like mine may never begin if the current dismantling of the NSF continues. How many young teachers will miss opportunities that once existed? How many graduate students will never receive the fellowship that changes the direction of their lives? And How many research projects will never be launched?

Those losses will not appear immediately in a budget document. They will be measured years from now in discoveries not made, innovations not developed, and talents never fully realized.

In 1963, the National Science Foundation invested in a young science teacher. I am only one of countless Americans whose life was changed by that investment. The question facing the nation today is whether we still believe such investments are worth making.

Our scientific leadership, our educational strength, and our capacity for innovation have always depended on the answer being yes.

Summary

In the summer of 1963, the author attended an NSF Summer Institute that transformed their career in science education, leading to further studies and collaborations supported by NSF funding. This investment in scientific literacy was crucial for the nation’s future. However, recent drastic budget cuts and restructuring at the NSF jeopardize educational programs and research initiatives aimed at fostering innovation. The author raises concerns about the implications of these changes, emphasizing potential lost opportunities for future educators and researchers, thereby highlighting the enduring importance of supporting science and education for long-term societal progress.

Footnotes

1. While at Ohio State, there were NSF Academic Year Institute participants that became lifetime friends and colleagues. All of them earned Ph.D’s. Joe Abrucation, a teacher from New Jersey became my writing partner early in our careers. Bob Champlin and I taught together at Lexington High, and came to OSU at the same time. Dr. Bob finished his career at Fitchberg State University. John Macini was a teacher in Sudbury, MA, and came to OSU. We became good friends. After his appointment to the University of Maryland, John joined the NSF as a program manager. Ed Lucy, a teacher from New York, did his doctorate at OSU, and then joined me at GSU as a professor of science education. Dr. Millie Graham, a teacher from West Virginia, finished her degree, and was also hired by GSU in science education. There were 40 teachers from schools around the United States. After a year, many returned to their high schools, where they continued to build science programs in their state and schools. ↩︎
2. Jonathan Schwabish, Judah Axelrod, NSF Has Canceled More Than 1,500 Grants. Nearly 90 Percent Were Related to DEI, Urban Wire, July, 2025 . ↩︎
3. Why the National Science Foundation is ripping monitoring instruments out of the ocean
   By Jessica McKenzie | News | June 4, 2026 ↩︎