When I mention that I study ticks and Lyme disease, I usually get a story in return, of either a personal or family struggle with Lyme or other tick-borne diseases, or a lament for days when ticks were not so common up north. Lyme disease is a very personal subject in places like the Upper Valley, where ticks and the diseases they bring have become common. I also began my career in research due to family connections to the disease.
As a PhD student at Dartmouth, I am one small part of the large network of researchers and health practitioners required to understand a disease as complicated as Lyme disease. From the biologists and ecologists who study the life cycles of the ticks and wildlife that carry Lyme disease, to the medical and epidemiological research necessary to track infections and treat patients, there are many different aspects to tackle. As an ecologist, my research focuses on the future of tick populations in the Northeast and investigates how environmental change might affect both the number of ticks and the presence of disease-causing pathogens within them.
This work would not be possible without a vast array of data collected by many different research efforts that extend beyond just ticks and tick-borne disease. I use data on tick populations collected by researchers at state agencies and universities throughout the Northeast, public health data from the Centers for Disease Control, and climate data from weather stations and satellites. These networks of researchers and data repositories are made possible by federal funding.
Without federal funding, important science is abandoned, leaving us in the dark on Lyme disease and many others. Many diseases are at risk of expanding into new areas and becoming more common. Just this year in Connecticut, the Asian longhorned tick, an invasive tick species, was found to be carrying Ehrlichiosis (a bacterial disease already spread by other tick species in the US) for the first time, and Upper Valley residents might remember the worry over Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) cases last summer. Federal funds and resources were involved in detecting and responding to the threat of each of these diseases. When federal funding is cut, this kind of research is not likely to be picked up by private funding because it is not profitable, despite the great value it provides to society.
The current administration has paused many federal science grants and fired federal employees, which has delayed and halted critical research. The proposed federal budget includes significant cuts to the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Science Foundation that will eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of these critical public agencies. Cuts in other agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, are also likely to negatively impact disease research that depends on reliable weather and climate data.
Disease research is just one of the prominent benefits that science funding brings to our communities, and it is not the only benefit we will lose with severe cuts to federal science funding. Please take the time to get in contact with your senators and representatives in Congress and let them know how important scientific research is to you, and urge them to fight for a strong budget for this essential research. You can go to 5calls.org to find and contact your congresspeople. To further support scientific research, take the pledge for science at tiny.cc/sciencepledge.
Joseph D. T. Savage is a PhD student in Dartmouth’s Ecology, Evolution, Environment, and Society program.