Since January 2025, researchers, journalists and organisations have been documenting growing threats to scientific research in the United States. From federal datasets being removed or altered to research grants being cancelled and restrictions on what scientists can say or publish, the individual stories have painted a deeply concerning picture.
But what does the evidence tell us when we bring it all together?
That’s what we’ve been working with #DefendResearch to explore. In September, we shared our plans to undertake a systematic study of the impact of US federal government action on public health research. Our aim was to move beyond individual accounts and create a citable evidence base that researchers, advocates, journalists and policymakers could use to understand the scale and nature of what’s happening – and inform action.
Now, we’re publishing the findings.
Our new report, From anecdote to evidence: Mapping the impact of US government action on public health research, draws on 244 academic records and news articles, analysing more than 4,200 coded extracts to identify how individual actions form part of a wider pattern of interference across the research system.
The study uses a preregistered, reproducible methodology, with search strategies, coding decisions and supporting evidence documented and open to scrutiny. It’s designed to provide a baseline that others can build on, including by extending the approach to other areas of research.
What the research found
The report identifies nine mechanisms operating at three interconnected levels:
- Across the research system: altering or removing data, ending data collection and dismantling the agencies and programmes responsible for producing evidence.
- Within research institutions: bringing funding decisions, scientific advice and publication under greater political control.
- For individual researchers: restricting what scientists can say or publish, removing dissenting voices and creating conditions that encourage self-censorship.
The consequences are already being felt. One study reviewed in the report found that 49% of 232 federal health datasets had undergone potentially substantive changes, with only 13% of those changes publicly documented. Elsewhere, clinical trials have been halted, public health surveillance reduced and prevention programmes closed or scaled back.
The report also examines how the research community has responded. Courts have reversed some government decisions, philanthropic organisations have funded alternative infrastructure, and journals and professional bodies have pledged to resist political interference.
But these responses have limitations. Restoring a dataset or replacing lost funding does not necessarily address the underlying vulnerability: the continued dependence of research infrastructure and institutions on political decision-making.
Why this matters to us
At Research Consulting, our work is driven by a vision of a future where knowledge is valued and used to benefit society. The developments unfolding in the US since early 2025 run directly counter to that vision.
We initially undertook the proof-of-concept phase of the study pro bono. The subsequent research was supported by #DefendResearch’s crowdfunding campaign and seed funding from the Association of University Presses, alongside our own contribution.
Rob Johnson, Managing Director of Research Consulting, said:
“This study moves the conversation from anecdote to evidence, giving advocates, journalists, policymakers and researchers a baseline they can point to. What we’ve seen unfolding in the US since early 2025 runs directly counter to our vision of a future where knowledge is valued and used to benefit society, and I believe we may well see similar developments in the UK and Europe over the coming years. Institutions here should be asking now how they would respond.”
Building a more resilient research system
Although the report focuses on the US, its findings raise important questions for research institutions, funders, publishers and policymakers internationally.
Its eight recommendations set out practical steps towards protecting research from censorship and political interference. These include strengthening legal protections for public access to research data, coordinating the preservation of threatened datasets, establishing clear journal policies on government requests to alter or withdraw research, and creating shared legal and financial support for institutions facing political pressure.
The report also highlights the importance of acting before damage occurs, rather than relying on legal challenges or alternative funding to repair it afterwards.
The findings provide both an evidence base for those responding to current developments in the US and a starting point for a wider conversation about how research systems can become more resilient.
Read the full report, executive summary and explore the underlying evidence.
To discuss the findings or Research Consulting’s involvement in the project, contact Rob Johnson.
You can also support this work through #DefendResearch’s crowdfunding campaign.
