Science, Interrupted - What happens after?

WEBVTT
00:00:11.759 --> 00:00:18.160
Hello, you're listening to EPITalk Behind the Paper, a monthly podcast from the Annals of Epidemiology.
00:00:18.160 --> 00:00:28.239
I'm Patrick Sullivan, editor-in-chief of the journal, and in this series we take you behind the scenes of some of the latest epidemiologic research featured in our journal.
00:00:28.239 --> 00:00:38.399
Today we're here with our editorial team for the special issue, Science, Interrupted.
00:00:38.399 --> 00:00:40.159
I'm so happy to welcome Dr.
00:00:40.159 --> 00:00:40.960
Lisa M.
00:00:40.960 --> 00:00:41.840
Lee and Dr.
00:00:41.840 --> 00:00:43.039
Amy Lansky.
00:00:43.039 --> 00:00:43.679
Welcome.
00:00:44.079 --> 00:00:44.399
Thank you.
00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:46.159
It's so wonderful to be here, Patrick.
00:00:46.399 --> 00:00:47.920
Thanks for having us, Patrick.
00:00:48.320 --> 00:00:56.079
So this special issue is really going to be built around an organizing question, which is what happens to science that's abruptly cut short.
00:00:56.079 --> 00:01:07.920
Our focus is on maximizing the value of prematurely terminated studies and understanding the epidemiologic, methodological, and ethical challenges that arise when science is interrupted.
00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:11.599
In this episode, we'll explore what kinds of papers Drs.
00:01:11.599 --> 00:01:19.760
Lee and Lansky are looking for for this special issue, and we'll think a little bit about what the implications are for interrupting science.
00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:21.680
So, first I'll introduce our guests.
00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:22.079
Dr.
00:01:22.079 --> 00:01:22.719
Lisa M.
00:01:22.719 --> 00:01:29.280
Lee is the senior associate vice president for research and innovation and a professor of public health at Virginia Tech.
00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:39.120
She's the former executive director of President Obama's National Bioethics Commission and held several leadership positions at the CDC during her 14-year career there.
00:01:39.120 --> 00:01:50.000
She's an infectious disease epidemiologist and public health ethicist whose research interests include building ethics competence and confidence among public health practitioners and STEM researchers.
00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:50.400
Dr.
00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:56.799
Amy Lansky retired in 2025 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with 30 years of service.
00:01:56.799 --> 00:02:02.719
Her work at CDC focused on evidence synthesis for public health guidelines and HIV prevention.
00:02:02.719 --> 00:02:08.879
She's an adjunct instructor at the University of North Carolina's Gilling School of Global Public Health.
00:02:08.879 --> 00:02:13.599
Thank you so much for joining us today, and I'm looking forward to our discussion.
00:02:13.919 --> 00:02:14.159
Great.
00:02:14.159 --> 00:02:14.960
Thanks, Patrick.
00:02:15.039 --> 00:02:16.400
It's very exciting to be here.
00:02:16.719 --> 00:02:19.680
Thanks so much, Patrick, for having us on EPITalk.
00:02:19.680 --> 00:02:21.599
I'm really glad to be here today.
00:02:22.080 --> 00:02:25.039
All right, so today we're going to talk about this special issue.
00:02:25.039 --> 00:02:38.479
And as you know, and maybe some of the listeners and authors know, we have these special issues in annals of epidemiology, which are often about like a public health area topic, a health promotion topic, or a disease area topic.
00:02:38.479 --> 00:02:42.879
But in this case, we're going to have a special issue about science interrupted.
00:02:42.879 --> 00:02:48.960
So, Lisa, can you just start us off by talking about why this issue of interrupted science is important?
00:02:49.439 --> 00:02:50.560
Yes, happy to.
00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:51.520
Thanks, Patrick.
00:02:51.520 --> 00:02:58.000
And I'm delighted to be here with Amy to discuss these really critical issues in EPI and public health generally.
00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:15.360
So science interrupted, this special issue of Annals of EPI, was a result of several conversations with colleagues early last year that I have had, we all had with folks who experienced funding stoppages on critical public health research projects.
00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:22.159
We started thinking about what are all the complexities around stopping studies with no good reason.
00:03:22.159 --> 00:03:29.280
And, you know, there are impacts clearly on participants, but there are also impacts on researchers and on the public.
00:03:29.280 --> 00:03:41.599
And what we were hoping to do was our goal with this is to document some of these effects of what many scientists are calling capricious and harmful approaches to cutting research funding.
00:03:41.599 --> 00:03:57.039
There was an interesting piece, and just to highlight how important this is, there was an interesting piece in Nature recently by Max Kozlov and colleagues that really provided a stunning graphical view of the stopped science in the first year of this administration's term.
00:03:57.039 --> 00:04:03.199
And it shows that in 2025, for example, more than 7,800 grants were suspended or cut.
00:04:03.199 --> 00:04:08.719
And this 5,800 of these were at NIH and about 2,000 at the National Science Foundation.
00:04:08.719 --> 00:04:15.840
And some of these were huge multi-center, multi-year grants that affected large groups of researchers.
00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:20.240
Others were smaller grants that affected, you know, a handful of researchers.
00:04:20.240 --> 00:04:25.600
Nonetheless, they affected, as I said earlier, participants, researchers, and the public.
00:04:25.600 --> 00:04:32.240
So some of the grants were reinstated after several weeks or months of interruption, a little bit of chaos and uncertainty.
00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:39.439
But the remaining frozen grants represent nearly one and a half billion dollars of unspent funds.
00:04:39.439 --> 00:04:45.680
That means one and a half billion dollars of taxpayer-funded science left on the table.
00:04:45.680 --> 00:04:54.319
So we thought that this was really important topic to talk about all of these impacts of this discuss.
00:04:55.360 --> 00:05:01.519
I would add on there too, that the special issue offers a venue, right?
00:05:01.519 --> 00:05:24.000
Like a place to bring together and showcase the adverse impacts of these actions, the stopping, you know, in some cases, restarting, those impacts on data, on ethics, and overall on the body of knowledge in various areas of science and research.
00:05:24.639 --> 00:05:30.639
Those are all such critical dimensions and harms that I think we need to document at this point.
00:05:30.639 --> 00:05:32.879
I mean, we we would love to have averted them.
00:05:32.879 --> 00:05:34.879
We would love for those harms to not happen.
00:05:34.879 --> 00:05:41.519
But I think as scientists, part of our opportunity and obligation now is to document them and to try to understand them.
00:05:41.519 --> 00:05:47.279
So I think that the title of the special issue, Science Interrupted, is a little bit provocative.
00:05:47.279 --> 00:05:55.360
But I wonder to get concrete about it, what does it mean and what are the ways in which scientific research might be interrupted?
00:05:55.680 --> 00:06:02.000
Um, Patrick, I think that's a really good question because we it isn't new that science gets interrupted.
00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:05.759
What's new here is the reason that the science has been interrupted.
00:06:05.759 --> 00:06:12.959
So there are many things that can disrupt research before it's a planned conclusion or before the study is finished.
00:06:12.959 --> 00:06:22.319
And in the past, studies have been stopped because the science itself has dictated that the risks of doing the study outweigh the benefits.
00:06:22.319 --> 00:06:30.399
So this can happen, for example, if a study is stopped because early results are just knocked out of the park, they're way better than expected.
00:06:30.399 --> 00:06:34.720
And a data safety monitoring board or DSMB says, stop the study.
00:06:34.720 --> 00:06:40.319
We know this works, and we need to get the control group to gain access to this effective treatment.
00:06:40.319 --> 00:06:42.720
So that's a good way studies can be stopped.
00:06:42.720 --> 00:06:44.399
Or the opposite can happen.
00:06:44.399 --> 00:06:48.800
An intervention might show no effect very early.
00:06:48.800 --> 00:06:54.079
And if the risks are really high, a study might be stopped because of futility.
00:06:54.079 --> 00:07:00.240
We don't love when that happens, obviously, but it's better to know earlier rather than later when the risks are high.
00:07:00.240 --> 00:07:04.079
So in some instances, we have to stop for those reasons.
00:07:04.079 --> 00:07:16.399
And rarely, but it does happen, studies can also be stopped if there is an unanticipated harmful outcome that happens and that it just again, the risks of the study far outweigh the potential benefits.
00:07:16.399 --> 00:07:25.439
And then the kind of the last usual reason we can see this happen is if researchers can't recruit enough participants to show an effect, if they can't get their power, so to speak.
00:07:25.439 --> 00:07:29.600
So those are some reasons that in the past research has been stopped.
00:07:29.600 --> 00:07:35.199
And there are ways to approach, you know, how to manage or mitigate the harms of that stoppage.
00:07:35.199 --> 00:07:50.319
For this special issue, though, that we're talking about today, we're focusing on the science that was interrupted as a result of this capricious discontinuation of federally funded research by the Trump administration.
00:07:50.319 --> 00:08:00.160
What we want to do is provide a place for scientists to report in a rigorous and objective way the impacts of this kind of interruption.
00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:02.879
We haven't seen this kind of interruption in the past.
00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:13.199
So we're really interested in how is this the same or different, or how are the impacts the same or different for these other things that we've seen science be stopped for.
00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:22.319
So to me, one of the key aspects of thinking about science being interrupted is that it was stopped abruptly.
00:08:22.319 --> 00:08:25.360
And the science might be started again, right?
00:08:25.360 --> 00:08:32.799
We've talked about a temporary interruption, and that can cause all kinds of chaos to stop.
00:08:32.799 --> 00:08:37.840
And again, having confusion and chaos at the restart.
00:08:37.840 --> 00:08:42.639
Or you can permanently end a study, which can cause problems.
00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:46.960
I think particularly when it's not an orderly shutdown.
00:08:46.960 --> 00:08:56.639
I think in some of the examples that Lisa gave, yes, there are these studies that might be stopped, but they would have an orderly shutdown.
00:08:56.639 --> 00:09:02.960
And this abrupt stopping, I think, has long-lasting and wide-ranging effects.
00:09:02.960 --> 00:09:09.039
And these are the issues that we're trying to see highlighted in the special issue.
00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:23.200
It's not looking for a series of horror stories about what happened, but rather a thoughtful documentation of the affected studies and the effects of those interruptions.
00:09:23.519 --> 00:09:25.759
Yeah, I mean, I guess I see two pieces to this.
00:09:25.759 --> 00:09:38.879
One is that if there's some knowledge, even if the accrual was cut short, even if the power is too small, there's still the respect for the sort of participation and obligation to make the best of what's available.
00:09:38.879 --> 00:09:45.759
Maybe it generates point estimates of something, but there's not enough follow time to make a conclusion about significance of it.
00:09:45.759 --> 00:10:11.039
So I think this idea of, in the spirit of honoring that participants have chosen to participate, that tax dollars have been invested, that people have dedicated a part of their career to do this, what knowledge can be retrieved from the information that's there while recognizing that it would have been a better investment to continue and get definitive answers, but we don't want to abandon the knowledge that can be taken away from what was actually done.
00:10:11.360 --> 00:10:25.519
Yeah, I think Patrick, that that's a great point, and Amy too, that you know, the idea here is what can we salvage out of this one and a half billion dollars of research, knowledge, and experience and creation that's being left on the table.
00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:45.200
And I think what we want this to be is a venue that people can put as much as they can get out of what's been stopped out there so we can salvage what knowledge we can gain from that, not just for their own ability to publish their work, but to further science, because we all know science is a team sport.
00:10:45.200 --> 00:10:48.720
We all build on what previous researchers have done.
00:10:48.720 --> 00:10:58.720
And perhaps there's something out there that's really innovative and great and helpful that just couldn't be finished, but could really spur on the next step in that line of research.
00:10:58.720 --> 00:11:00.240
So that's really what we're looking for.
00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:01.919
I mean, it is such a great point.
00:11:01.919 --> 00:11:07.360
And it's part of the scientific enterprise that like we have a responsibility to put out what we know.
00:11:07.360 --> 00:11:10.320
Like there's a similar discussion around publishing negative findings.
00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:11.360
Like, why do we do that?
00:11:11.360 --> 00:11:15.279
Like there's a perception that some journals might not want to publish negative findings.
00:11:15.279 --> 00:11:17.679
Well, one, it repeats people from doing it again.
00:11:17.679 --> 00:11:28.480
And two, there might be some directional knowledge about associations that didn't make it to significance because of sample size or other factors that really helps people think about what to do next.
00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:41.120
So I think there is an ethical obligation to share information that's been collected when we've asked people to give their time, their tissues, their, you know, whatever it is that their health information, whatever it is that's been provided.
00:11:41.120 --> 00:11:44.879
And I think you both speak to that in a way that's really compelling.
00:11:44.879 --> 00:11:49.519
We've sort of started into this a little bit, but what do you think?
00:11:49.519 --> 00:11:56.159
Like you both already put some more rich ideas into the discussion about this short phrase, science interrupted.
00:11:56.159 --> 00:12:00.960
But what do you think people might not think about all the downstream implications?
00:12:00.960 --> 00:12:04.080
What is at stake when science is interrupted?
00:12:04.480 --> 00:12:09.120
I think that's a really important question because I think on the surface you're right.
00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:17.279
People who've experienced a funding termination have their experience and they they understand what has happened to them.
00:12:17.279 --> 00:12:22.080
I think there are a lot of other things that we need to think about as a field.
00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:39.440
There are a number of adverse outcomes, and I think that these can affect study volunteers, as we've already intimated earlier, that people give their time and effort and sometimes their biological samples to research, and then they do that with some risk to help other people in the future.
00:12:39.440 --> 00:12:41.519
So there are impacts to volunteers.
00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:51.840
There are impacts to researchers, to be sure, early career scholars or research trainees, or even uh well-established scholars can have incredible impacts from this.
00:12:51.840 --> 00:12:57.759
And importantly, there are impacts on the knowledge that we now know will not be generated.
00:12:57.759 --> 00:13:03.840
So, you know, we outlined some of the costs of this in our editorial announcement for the special issue.
00:13:03.840 --> 00:13:06.559
And so I'd just like to briefly touch on them.
00:13:06.559 --> 00:13:12.960
I think one of the important things is there is a cost of having collected now unusable data.
00:13:12.960 --> 00:13:24.480
So, you know, you have a study, you're looking to identify what kind of exposures are harmful, for example, and what kind of uh, or you're looking for beneficial prevention or treatment options.
00:13:24.480 --> 00:13:34.080
To do this, researchers have to very carefully calculate the number of people that they need in order to properly power their studies to be able to make statistical claims.
00:13:34.080 --> 00:13:46.559
And when we stop funding, which often means stopping data collection before reaching enough data to achieve statistically valid claims, that means these sunk costs that can't be recouped.
00:13:46.559 --> 00:13:50.559
And that's what I meant about the $1.5 billion kind of left on the table.
00:13:50.559 --> 00:13:54.399
So that unusable data is a cost to all of us.
00:13:54.399 --> 00:13:57.440
But they're also important costs to participants.
00:13:57.440 --> 00:14:07.440
Research volunteers have taken on study risks with knowledge and consent to help generate knowledge that will someday help other people.
00:14:07.440 --> 00:14:12.799
And when a study stops, they will have taken on that risk without the ability to provide any benefit.
00:14:12.799 --> 00:14:16.879
And this is obviously really ethically problematic and needs to be addressed.
00:14:16.879 --> 00:14:27.840
And as Amy said earlier, when you have an orderly shutdown of things, sometimes that gives you an opportunity to protect research volunteers in a way that can help mitigate some of those harms.
00:14:27.840 --> 00:14:37.840
But in this case, where there just was an abrupt stop, people did face challenges to ensuring that their research volunteers were well taken care of.
00:14:37.840 --> 00:14:49.440
The other thing that I think is a cost, and this is a bigger picture cost, but is really important when we stop without any kind of scientific reason, it's the cost of public trust.
00:14:49.440 --> 00:15:01.200
And stopping studies that are designed to improve health, studies that cost the public's tax dollars, and getting nothing from this certainly will erode trust and research.
00:15:01.200 --> 00:15:14.000
And although we won't know this for some time, this lack of trust could affect the public's willingness to participate in future research studies, to have their tax money, you know, put toward scientific research.
00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:24.480
And the real harm that we've learned a lot about in public health is that when trust has been broken, rebuilding it is a long and challenging endeavor.
00:15:24.480 --> 00:15:34.639
So I think this bigger picture harm that feels a little nebulous is something we're gonna be dealing with for for many years to come.
00:15:34.639 --> 00:15:46.960
And Amy, you probably have something to add here, but that that's you know, in summary, what I think what I mean when I'm thinking about what people don't really realize about what's at stake when science gets interrupted.
00:15:47.440 --> 00:15:54.000
And Lisa thinks I do want to pick up on this theme of the longer-term effects.
00:15:54.000 --> 00:16:02.320
I spent a number of years working in the area of evidence synthesis and guidelines development.
00:16:02.320 --> 00:16:13.039
And I'm really concerned about how these abrupt endings of studies will adversely impact an overall body of evidence in a particular area.
00:16:13.039 --> 00:16:21.120
And so it's not just that a particular study will not be completed, but the whole body of knowledge may be affected.
00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:29.279
And studies build on each other, they fill in gaps, they get analyzed together to make sense of them as a whole.
00:16:29.279 --> 00:16:34.720
And we could be missing really important pieces in a body of evidence.
00:16:34.720 --> 00:16:41.120
And so there won't be the data to contribute to broader understanding of a health issue.
00:16:41.120 --> 00:16:55.279
There may not be protocols made available to understand new or different methods for the design or analysis of study data that could set back innovation by months or years.
00:16:55.279 --> 00:17:02.639
And as you've said, Lisa, about trust, it just takes a really long time to build things back.
00:17:02.639 --> 00:17:10.720
It's a short time to cause disruption and a really long time, months and years to build it back.
00:17:10.720 --> 00:17:20.640
And I think, you know, Lisa, you've touched on some of these, but these wide-reaching effects on the participants and on the researchers themselves.
00:17:20.640 --> 00:17:30.079
So participants were maybe in a trial of a new medication or an intervention, and then all of a sudden those are taken away from them.
00:17:30.079 --> 00:17:38.880
Or researchers who, you know, they might be at the beginning or the middle or the end of their careers, and they have the teams of people they support.
00:17:38.880 --> 00:17:47.759
And even though it might be easy to stop or restart funding, you can kind of turn the money pipeline on and off.
00:17:47.759 --> 00:17:54.240
It's not that easy to just wrap up or later open back up a research study.
00:17:54.240 --> 00:18:02.240
And so we also see there's devastating psychological, economic, and social effects.
00:18:02.240 --> 00:18:08.880
And I think our special issue is an opportunity to highlight all of these types of impacts.
00:18:09.279 --> 00:18:17.200
Yeah, you together provided such a comprehensive view of what's at stake when science is interrupted.
00:18:17.200 --> 00:18:30.880
And so all of us as scientists ourselves who participate in editorial roles and who also write papers and run research, I think talked about this special issue as a way, hopefully, to mitigate some of the harm.
00:18:30.880 --> 00:18:34.160
Like Amy, you were talking about a lost partial knowledge.
00:18:34.160 --> 00:18:44.960
What will journals do when you come and say, I was funded to do a study with 2,000 person years of follow time and now only have 426 person years of follow time.
00:18:44.960 --> 00:18:49.839
So I have some point estimates, but it doesn't really get the confidence intervals are really broad.
00:18:49.839 --> 00:18:57.920
And so this idea of lost partial knowledge, I think is one of the things that motivates even those point estimates of effect have a value in public health.
00:18:57.920 --> 00:19:05.440
And if we turn from thinking about what the harms are to what the recovery from this is, how do we get back on track?
00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:11.359
It's gonna be really critical that we preserve the partial knowledge that was gained from interrupted science.
00:19:11.359 --> 00:19:20.000
And so I'm so grateful to the two of you for your leadership in making a place that we're gonna explicitly welcome this information.
00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:30.160
One, because partial knowledge also needs to be preserved, but also for those higher level insights about the very complex and impactful effects of interrupting science.
00:19:30.160 --> 00:19:31.839
So I think it's it's both things.
00:19:31.839 --> 00:19:49.839
And so, in light of that, I wonder if you can talk a little bit about what types of papers you're expecting for the special issue and what kinds of things you'd be happy to have come in and get a chance to look at and think about, you know, how we get outside input and put together a special issue.
00:19:49.839 --> 00:19:53.440
What are you hoping comes in and how do you plan to proceed?
00:19:54.079 --> 00:19:56.480
Well, Patrick, I think a couple things.
00:19:56.480 --> 00:20:13.440
One is, you know, we want this special issue, as Amy stated earlier, to be a helpful venue for people who have some information that they can't complete and they would really like to, and we would like to see that partial knowledge.
00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:23.039
So when we're talking about the special issue of science interrupted, we're really talking about that interruption part being the funding cuts or the terminations of funding over the last year or so.
00:20:23.039 --> 00:20:34.720
And what we want to do, as we've said earlier, is provide a venue for outlining the varied impacts of this kind of unexpected and sudden interruption of science.
00:20:34.720 --> 00:20:39.920
So, broadly speaking, well, we want really are looking for four kinds of papers.
00:20:39.920 --> 00:20:46.400
One is really, as we've been recently talking about here today, about the partial results of interrupted studies.
00:20:46.400 --> 00:20:55.119
So the disruptions have meant that studies haven't been able to complete their enrollment goals, or perhaps that's resulting for them in underpowered analyses.
00:20:55.119 --> 00:21:05.279
We hope that what we can do is, as you say, put out there what's had with what they've been able to collect and analyze with the addition of some context about the stopping of the study.
00:21:05.279 --> 00:21:10.960
We hope to salvage some of these sunk costs from these projects that have been terminated without any cause.
00:21:10.960 --> 00:21:24.079
The second kind of articles we hope to see is to highlight at this time in history some of the actual and potential harms caused by this premature ending of studies for non-scientific reasons.
00:21:24.079 --> 00:21:31.279
So these manuscripts could focus on things like harms to research participants, harms to the research infrastructure.
00:21:31.279 --> 00:21:46.720
I mean, if you think about how grant money and researchers build a research infrastructure around a particular topic or theme or lane of research, you pull a few of those pieces of that infrastructure out, and just like a Django tower, it can't come crashing down.
00:21:46.720 --> 00:21:49.680
So those infrastructure impacts are really important.
00:21:49.680 --> 00:21:59.519
As Amy mentioned earlier, there will be harms to the development of knowledge, that bigger picture of the meta analyses and the systematic reviews and those kinds of things that we do.
00:21:59.519 --> 00:22:05.279
So We'd like to be able to highlight what these actual and potential harms are.
00:22:05.279 --> 00:22:15.759
Thirdly, we want to see, we do see this as an opportunity to preserve whatever knowledge gathering has started for these terminated projects.
00:22:15.759 --> 00:22:19.119
So we're interested in things like innovative protocols.
00:22:19.119 --> 00:22:24.319
Perhaps you've written a great protocol and you weren't able to start to do any data collection.
00:22:24.319 --> 00:22:24.960
That's okay.
00:22:24.960 --> 00:22:29.920
If it's an innovative protocol that might help a future researcher, that might be something we're interested in.
00:22:29.920 --> 00:22:41.680
Excellent data collection instruments or intervention materials or other products from projects that folks have planned but weren't able to implement because they were cut.
00:22:41.680 --> 00:22:46.240
Those might be really important tools for a future researcher to use.
00:22:46.240 --> 00:22:47.759
So that would be important.
00:22:47.759 --> 00:22:58.880
The other thing that I think really matters here, and we've touched on it a little bit, but we are really interested in documenting the harms to researchers, to trainees, and their careers.
00:22:58.880 --> 00:23:07.839
And so we'd like to know a little bit about how these terminations are changing the landscape of our future scientific workforce.
00:23:07.839 --> 00:23:22.480
We know already that some early career scientists have left the field because their major sources of funding were terminated last year and they have not been able to recover and have not been able to get new funding for that.
00:23:22.480 --> 00:23:23.839
So they've left the field.
00:23:23.839 --> 00:23:26.079
That is a loss for us in the field.
00:23:26.079 --> 00:23:43.279
And so we'd like to get some documentation of what that might look like and how our very near medium and longer term future of public health researchers, epidemiologic research will be impacted by these changes in the scientific workforce.
00:23:43.279 --> 00:24:04.559
Another piece that I just think is really important for us to think about, which Amy touched on earlier, is this idea of what we call moral distress or this distress that a researcher might have from having started a study, engaged participants, made claims about things they were going to deliver, and then not be able to deliver that.
00:24:04.559 --> 00:24:14.000
That also has an impact on researchers, regardless of where they are in their career, about what they've committed to do, what now they can no longer do.
00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:22.079
That kind of distress has huge impacts on researchers and their staff and their colleagues.
00:24:22.079 --> 00:24:24.880
And we're interested in learning more about that.
00:24:24.880 --> 00:24:34.480
So we really hope that we can get a variety of papers that cover all of these various impacts of interrupting science.
00:24:34.880 --> 00:24:52.079
And you know, I would add that I think we've all seen a lot of stories about this, either in the news, LinkedIn posts, Substacks, talking about science that's been interrupted.
00:24:52.079 --> 00:25:00.640
We've seen the funding cuts, I've seen scientists featured in news stories who've had their research terminated.
00:25:00.640 --> 00:25:11.920
And we'd be willing to see those types of stories repurposed for the focus areas and the formats of this special issue.
00:25:11.920 --> 00:25:33.759
So I would say if you've written something for a different outlet, it would be great to look at the formats that we're looking for and see how something maybe that's already been started or had a particular focus in one direction could be appropriate for what we're looking for in this special issue.
00:25:33.759 --> 00:25:36.559
So it doesn't all have to start from scratch.
00:25:36.960 --> 00:25:37.759
That's great.
00:25:37.759 --> 00:25:41.839
I think we've really covered the what types of papers.
00:25:41.839 --> 00:25:56.960
So as we wrap up, I just want to ask, give each of you a chance to think about, you know, is there anything about the interruption that caused you to see your work, caused you to see the scientific landscape in a different way, either around your work or others?
00:25:57.440 --> 00:25:59.279
Thanks for that opportunity, Patrick.
00:25:59.279 --> 00:26:18.160
I will say that it was a very rough year for so many people who have spent a lot of their professional and intellectual capital working on really important health impact studies, studies about health and public health.
00:26:18.160 --> 00:26:39.759
And for me, one thing that really motivated my wanting to talk about these issues in an objective and in a scientific journal in that way was that a lot of us processed these cuts, these terminations, through our researcher lens, our intellectual kind of approach to things.
00:26:39.759 --> 00:26:53.920
Yet there were so many just very human things that happen to people, people who, you know, their salaries got cut, they had to let people go, members of their research team that they really cared about and have worked together for a long time.
00:26:53.920 --> 00:27:13.200
So what I really hope happens during this, authors who submit to our journal for this special issue is that they're able to pull together kind of and maybe unify some of that very human part of them themselves and what this meant to them, as well as, you know, the scientific part that is always our go-to.
00:27:13.200 --> 00:27:31.279
So, you know, for me, I think we have opened up an opportunity for people to, I hope, process a little bit of this, both for what it means for them and for their teams, as well as for what it means to the field to which we're all committed, which is to improve the public's health.
00:27:31.680 --> 00:27:37.759
You know, Lisa, that makes me think about conversations that I've had with people.
00:27:37.759 --> 00:27:42.799
I think particularly my conversations have been with people in government.
00:27:42.799 --> 00:27:52.640
And we talk about red lines, about when things get to a point where you just can't stay in that particular environment.
00:27:52.640 --> 00:28:02.799
And I think that's happened with a lot of government scientists who get to that point where they just need to not be there anymore.
00:28:02.799 --> 00:28:05.839
And that was my particular case.
00:28:05.839 --> 00:28:16.079
And I am now spending my time giving back by doing scientific work, such as this special issue.
00:28:16.079 --> 00:28:20.960
I'm teaching and also doing advocacy.
00:28:20.960 --> 00:28:39.039
And over the past year, I've thought about this, and I'm really excited about our special issue because I really believe we have an obligation to students and trainees to have a record of these unprecedented times and what they meant.
00:28:39.039 --> 00:28:48.319
And with this special issue, we're helping build the historical record of what occurred and the various aspects of the impacts.
00:28:48.319 --> 00:28:51.759
And I feel really fortunate to be a part of that.
00:28:51.759 --> 00:28:58.880
And I'm really looking forward to the submissions and to pulling together this special issue.
00:28:59.279 --> 00:29:00.480
Well said, Amy.
00:29:00.480 --> 00:29:03.200
I'm very much looking forward to working with you on this.
00:29:03.680 --> 00:29:04.160
Well said.
00:29:04.160 --> 00:29:10.319
And I just want to comment as someone who's had the privilege of working with the two of you over decades.
00:29:10.319 --> 00:29:20.079
Um, if we sum them all up, maybe a century among us of work in public health, that I appreciate your leadership in public health in the past.
00:29:20.079 --> 00:29:35.519
And I think you're leading this special issue for the reasons that each of you just spelled out, is also a really important piece of leadership to document this moment and to help us think in objective and longer form ways about just exactly what's at stake.
00:29:35.519 --> 00:29:37.440
So thank you for your leadership.
00:29:37.440 --> 00:29:42.559
And we really look forward to seeing manuscripts come in and establishing.
00:29:42.559 --> 00:29:44.640
I mean, this is what we know how to do, right?
00:29:44.640 --> 00:29:48.960
Is which is to look at things systematically, to think, to write, to document.
00:29:48.960 --> 00:30:01.839
And I think it's so important to document what the impact of this is so that in the future people can say, maybe it's a good idea to make our budget look better by just stopping science per year or stopping 50% of science per year.
00:30:01.839 --> 00:30:08.160
And this is such an important part of documenting what the real costs and outcomes of that are.
00:30:08.160 --> 00:30:15.440
So thank you both for your work as scientists, for your work as scientific thought leaders, and for your time today to talk about this topic.
00:30:15.440 --> 00:30:18.319
So that's going to bring us to the end of this episode.
00:30:18.319 --> 00:30:21.440
Thanks to each of you for joining us again today.
00:30:21.440 --> 00:30:26.160
It was such a pleasure to have you on the podcast and to talk about this important issue.
00:30:26.559 --> 00:30:27.519
Thanks, Patrick.
00:30:27.519 --> 00:30:28.799
Thanks for your support.
00:30:29.039 --> 00:30:30.720
Thanks so much for having us.
00:30:30.720 --> 00:30:31.680
I enjoyed it.
00:30:31.920 --> 00:30:45.599
And I'll just add if any of our listeners are interested in submitting a paper to the special issue, please submit your manuscript through the Annals of Epidemiology website before the submission deadline of the 31st of July, 2026.
00:30:45.599 --> 00:30:49.039
I'm your host, Patrick Sullivan.
00:30:49.039 --> 00:30:53.279
Thanks for tuning in to this episode and see you next time on EPITalk.
00:30:53.279 --> 00:30:59.359
Brought to you by Annals of Epidemiology, the official journal of the American College of Epidemiology.
00:30:59.359 --> 00:31:10.000
For a transcript of this podcast or to read the article featured on this episode and more from the journal, you can visit us online at www.annals of epidemiology.org.