Ask the SSP Advocacy Committee: What one change would you most like to see in terms of U.S. federal support for research following the midterms?

Days before the U.S. midterm elections, members of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Advocacy Committee have outlined the changes they would most like to see in federal support for research. Their responses were published on October 29 in a post on The Scholarly Kitchen, the society's blog.

The committee was formed recently and is led by co-chairs Beth Craanen and Tim Lloyd. Its stated aim is to support responsible advocacy by providing resources, educational programs and guidance that help the scholarly publishing community take part in policy discussions. The post says federal actions affecting research have come up frequently in the committee's discussions. Members were invited to share their personal views.

Stable, long-term funding

Jennifer Regala, Senior Director of Publishing and Product Development at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said her priority is a renewed commitment to stable, long-term federal support, with particular emphasis on stability. Discovery can take years or even decades, she argued, and researchers need confidence that support will continue. In her assessment, sustained uncertainty is slowing innovation, discouraging early-career researchers and complicating planning at institutions. Funding, she added, is only one part of the picture: findings have impact when they are reviewed, disseminated and preserved, and societies and publishers play a central role in that process. She concluded that science should not be politicized and should be protected by policymakers across the political spectrum.

Rebecca McLeod, Managing Director of the Harvard Data Science Review at the Harvard Data Science Initiative, called for sustained and predictable support across the entire research lifecycle, including the infrastructure that makes findings accessible and usable. Reliable support, she said, would allow investigators to plan ahead, train new researchers and ensure that publicly funded work can inform further study.

Decisions guided by peer review

Emma Wilson, Director of Publishing at the Royal Society of Chemistry, described research as a collaborative and global undertaking. She said she would like to see predictable, long-term federal funding, with decisions guided by scientific expertise and peer review. According to Wilson, weakening a leading national research system has consequences well beyond U.S. borders and disrupts innovation around the world.

Protecting infrastructure and people

Matt Giampoala, Vice President of Publications at the American Geophysical Union, said executive actions over the past two years have dismantled research infrastructure, interrupted long-running studies, removed datasets, hindered international collaboration and damaged the pipeline of future researchers. He noted that support for science funding remains bipartisan and that Congress has appropriated research money above the President's budget requests. Those funds, however, are not being spent as approved, he said, citing $1 billion in unspent fiscal year 2026 funding at the National Science Foundation.

Giampoala urged the next Congress to make sure appropriated science funding is actually spent and to stop the loss of critical scientific capacity. As evidence that such pressure can succeed, he pointed to a bipartisan Senate resolution that led the Administration to reverse the removal of ocean observing equipment. He also called for rebuilding lost expertise in government and universities, broadening access to science careers, and restoring the United States as a destination for international students and as a trusted research partner.

Reviving stalled work

Independent consultant Yael Fitzpatrick said a great deal of research funding has been cut and that some of it may not be recoverable, although she hopes a large share of stalled work can be revived. She described widespread news fatigue and called for renewed efforts to re-engage the public. Her proposed approach is to show what can still be restored and to share concrete accounts of what research achieves and what is lost when it stops. Fitzpatrick, a resident of the District of Columbia, noted that the district has no voting representation in Congress, and she thanked those who have contacted their elected officials in support of research.

An end to censorship

Alice Meadows, a scholarly communications consultant and former SSP President, said her foremost wish is a rollback of government censorship in all its forms. Book bans, she argued, are only the most visible example. Less visible measures, in her account, include pressure on academic freedom, restrictions on hundreds of words and phrases in grant applications and publications, permission requirements for international collaboration and conference travel, and budget cuts for research that falls outside the administration's priorities. Meadows said these measures have already led individuals and institutions to censor themselves, an effect she warned could take years or decades to reverse.

The Scholarly Kitchen post notes that some contributors used AI to help refine their wording.

Source: The Scholarly Kitchen, October 29, 2026.