Preface
Dr. John Holdren warns that Trump’s science cuts could undermine America’s scientific progress, leading to a decline in innovation and talent. This erosion threatens the foundational feedback loop where public investment drives breakthroughs, economic growth, and global leadership. In an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists1, Max Field interviewed Dr. Holdren who said science will starve because of the cuts to the nation’s federal scientific research and development. The historical efforts of educators like Marjorie Gardner, Mary Budd Rowe, and Melvin Webb are highlighted. These educators pioneered inclusive science education long before diversity initiatives gained recognition. Their commitment opened doors for marginalized groups in science. It laid the groundwork for future advancements. The emphasis on neglect and fear highlights the risk of dismantling decades of progress.
The System Will Starve
Dr. John Holdren sees Trump’s second term not as a turning point toward innovation. Instead, he perceives it as a slow-motion hollowing of America’s scientific engine. For generations, the nation’s prosperity has relied on a feedback loop. Public investment in fundamental research fuels breakthroughs. These breakthroughs drive economic growth, security, and global leadership. This success justifies renewed investment. Trump’s policies threaten to snap that loop. Deep cuts to research will starve the system of both ideas and talent. Ideological purges in key agencies pose a threat as well. Hostility toward foreign students and attacks on diversity worsen the situation. The danger isn’t a dramatic collapse. It is a quiet erosion. Labs are shuttered, talent is scattered. Young people are turning away. Over time, this will leave the United States trailing in the very fields that once defined its strength.
Holdren’s warning struck me not only for its urgency but for what it left unsaid. The “fuel” he describes—those streams of research, talent, and innovation that keep the network alive—didn’t emerge on their own. They were built, often painstakingly, by people whose names rarely made it into policy briefings or campaign speeches. Long before science education became a political fault line, a handful of educators worked diligently. Researchers also laid the groundwork for the inclusive ecosystem Trump now threatens to dismantle. Three of them—Gardner, Rowe, and Webb—stood at a quiet turning point.
Editor’s Note
When people talk about the federal push to broaden participation in science, they usually point to the 1990s. This was when “STEM” became a policy buzzword. It was also when NSF began weaving diversity goals into its grant language. But the story began much earlier, in quieter rooms, with individuals whose names rarely made the headlines.
As I pieced together the early architecture of that movement, I discovered a cluster of figures. They passed through universities in the 1960s. Later, they converged, directly or indirectly, at the National Science Foundation. Marjorie Gardner (PhD, Ohio State, 1964) had a unique contribution. Mary Budd Rowe (PhD, Stanford, 1964) also contributed uniquely. Melvin Webb (PhD, Ohio State, 1971) added his unique contributions as well. Each worked in different ways. They focused on curriculum, classroom research, and community pipelines. Nonetheless, their efforts intersected to reshape NSF’s approach to science education.
Their work unfolded during a period of cultural turbulence and institutional inertia. Yet they managed to pry open doors that had been closed to women. They pried open doors for Black educators. They also pried open doors for entire communities long excluded from federal science programs. The sidebar that follows tells part of their story. It’s not a well-known history. But it should be.
The Early Architects of Inclusion
*Washington, 1979 — How three educators quietly reshaped NSF science education before “DEI” had a name*
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.
Mary Budd Rowe brought a complementary force. Rowe was a gifted researcher and a natural storyteller. Her “wait time” work transformed classrooms. She proved that simply pausing for three seconds after asking a question led to deeper reasoning. This pause also encouraged more fair participation. As NSF’s Division Director for Research in Science Education, she redefined federal priorities. She encouraged a focus on inquiry and cognition. She emphasized how students learn rather than just what they’re taught. Rowe’s research widened the circle of who could meaningfully participate in science learning. I met Dr Rowe in the late 1970s. I was director a the Atlanta field test center for a new NSF curriculum (Individualized Science Instructional System. Dr. Rowe came to Atlanta to meet with me and visit some of the high schools where ISIS was being field-tested.
Marjorie Gardner was a newly minted PhD from Ohio State. She arrived at the University of Maryland and with an NSF vision. Her vision was for integrated science curricula and strong teacher preparation. She had already challenged the siloed structure of school science through her work in interdisciplinary chemistry education. At NSF, Gardner became one of the first women to hold significant leadership roles in science education. She also was part of Division of Research in Science Education, along with Dr. Rowe. Her presence alone signaled a change. Her initiatives pushed the Foundation to think more holistically about how curriculum design and teacher development shape access to science.She also originated a leadership summer conferences for teams of educators from 10 – 15 cities and school systems. I was a member of Dr. Gardener’s Leadership Institute in the summer of 1969 at the University of Maryland. She was influential in my career and she advised many of us in the field.
Meanwhile, Melvin “Mel” Webb was forging a different but connected path. As a young Atlanta teacher admitted to Ohio State’s Academic Year Institute, Webb asked pointed questions about opportunity and access. He completed his PhD and returned to Atlanta. With NSF support, he launched initiatives. These initiatives linked the city’s public schools to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) like Clark and Atlanta University. By 1979, Webb’s Saturday Science Academy had become a local anchor. It was a community-based, university-partnered program. The academy was inquiry-rich and gave Black students early, sustained access to scientific practice. His work anticipated the “broadening participation” programs NSF would later institutionalize nationally. In the spring of 1969, I was a graduate student at Ohio State where I was assistant to the director of the NSF Academic Year Institute for math and science teachers. One day, I got a call from a teacher in Atlanta. His name was Mel Webb. He want information about the Institute. I could help him with that. There years later we met in Atlanta. I had been offered a job as an assistant professor of science education at Georgia State University. Mel returned to Atlanta to take a position at Clark Atlanta University. In 1973 or 1974 we collaborated on the writing of an NSF proposal to prepare teachers in the APS to use the Intermediate Science Curriculum Study NSF funded curriculum. Mel’s grant was funded and his funding from NSF went on for decades.
Gardner and Rowe opened institutional doors at NSF. Webb built pathways through them. Together, they shifted federal science education away from elite content toward inclusive practice; away from isolated programs toward living pipelines. Their work wasn’t labeled “DEI” then—but in practice, that’s exactly what it was. They were early architects of a more democratic scientific enterprise, laying structural beams that still hold decades later.
Looking Back
Looking back, it’s clear that this system’s strength was never inevitable. It depended on choices. People built programs and defended ideas. They opened doors when it would have been easier to leave them shut. That’s what makes Holdren’s warning land so hard. What took decades to construct can be unraveled quickly. This does not happen through a single act. It occurs through neglect, fear, and the slow starving of shared institutions. History remembers the architects. It also remembers the moments when their work was left undefended.
Dr. Marjorie Gardner was devoted to the teaching of science throughout her life. She began as a high school teacher in Utah. She then became an instructor in chemistry and science education at Ohio State University. In 1964, she joined the University of Maryland as a professor of chemistry and secondary education. She established her reputation as a crusader for science education while at Maryland. In 1984, she accepted the position of Director of the Lawrence Hall of Science at Berkeley.
Mary Budd Rowe (1925–1996) was an influential American science educator and researcher. She is known for coining the term “wait time“. Her work demonstrated that longer pauses by teachers after asking questions lead to improved student responses and learning.
Dr. Mel Webb, was a distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at Clark Atlanta University. He had a career spanning over 42 years. During his career, he also served as Dean of Faculty and Dean of Education. He was instrumental in developing mentoring programs within the STEM pipeline. While he was a true legend and long-time professor, his retirement celebration was held in July 2018.
Dr. John Holdren is an American scientist. He served as the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues. He held several important roles. He was an assistant to the president for science and technology. He also served as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Additionally, he was co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
- Max Field, “The System will starve,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 4, 2025 ↩︎
You must be logged in to post a comment.