"Worry mounts": Are chemistry departments in the United States potentially facing closure?
In recent times, chemistry departments in several US universities have been grappling with a series of challenges that include funding cuts, program eliminations, and the need to innovate curricula towards sustainability and practical relevance.
One of the significant issues facing these departments is the disruption in federal funding for US science research, particularly from agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This funding crunch has led to revoked graduate admissions offers, the need for students to self-fund expensive programs, and even caused some students to consider or move abroad for better support. This funding shortage threatens the viability of chemistry graduate programs and affects student retention and recruitment.
In response to state laws and funding imperatives, some universities like the University of Utah are cutting numerous low-enrollment or less prioritized academic programs. This includes chemistry-related degrees such as bachelor's in chemistry teaching and graduate programs, where graduates have been very few over several years. Such cuts reflect a trend to prioritize “high-demand” fields over traditional chemistry degrees.
There is also a growing movement in chemistry education to embed green chemistry principles that emphasize safer, more sustainable practices. The 2025 Green Chemistry Commitment Summit illustrates active efforts by faculty communities to reshape chemistry teaching with environmental and societal relevance, signaling a curricular shift within programs.
To address these challenges, panels and discussions at prominent meetings such as the ACS Fall 2025 conference have highlighted the need for programs to shore up enrollment, build industry partnerships, and secure diverse funding streams. These conversations indicate departments are actively strategizing how to adapt chemistry degrees to evolving academic and workforce demands.
Notable instances of these trends can be seen in various universities. For example, Fresno Pacific University in California warned of a financial black hole due to declining enrolment revenue and made the decision to close 16 degrees, including chemistry, which altogether accounted for just 3% of students. Similarly, Christian Brothers University (CBU) in Tennessee announced that chemistry was among the dozen programmes that would close at the end of the 2023-2024 academic year.
Other universities, however, have managed to save their chemistry programmes. The chemistry programmes at SUNY Postdam were saved because the school was able to demonstrate that nearly all its courses served students on other degrees, including biology and environmental science. The University of Bradford, on the other hand, has closed its chemistry courses this year, while the University of East Anglia proposed cutting full-time faculty, including 22 from science, this year.
The chairs of 36 US chemistry departments have expressed their concerns about these trends in a letter published in Science, arguing that these shifts threaten the strength of the US research enterprise and the nation's role as an economic and technological leader. The letter notes that federally funded academic research in chemistry has led to groundbreaking discoveries, including paclitaxel, lithium-ion batteries, and advanced materials like polypropylene carbonate.
In conclusion, chemistry departments in US universities are facing a challenging landscape, with funding cuts, program eliminations, and the need to innovate curricula towards sustainability and practical relevance. However, there are signs that departments are actively strategizing to adapt to these challenges and secure the future of chemistry education in the US.
- The disruption in federal funding for US science research, particularly from agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has driven some students to consider organic chemistry education abroad due to the funding shortage.
- In response to funding imperatives, universities have been eliminating programs, including those focused on analytical chemistry and biochemistry, as well as chemistry teaching degrees, to prioritize "high-demand" fields.
- To combat these issues, there is a growing movement in education and self-development to embed green chemistry principles in teaching, emphasizing safer, more sustainable practices in health and wellness, environment, and general news.
- Departments are strategizing ways to adapt chemistry degrees to evolving academic and workforce demands, such as securing diverse funding streams, building industry partnerships, and shoring up enrollment.
- In an effort to remain relevant, some universities have shown the importance of interdisciplinary relationships, like the chemistry programmes at SUNY Postdam, which demonstrated that their courses served students on other degrees, including biology and environmental science.
- The chairs of 36 US chemistry departments argue that the shifts in funding and program eliminations threaten the strength of the US research enterprise, citing groundbreaking discoveries in fields like medicine (medical-conditions), batteries, biochemistry, and polymers as evidence of the vital role chemistry plays in industry and academia.
