It could be that these two scientists were great but not funded. Or it could be that their ideas weren't that great, and that they're disgruntled. Can't really tell from just a couple anecdotes.

That said, there are huge systemic problems that this story didn't really touch on. The one side is funding, which they mentioned a little, but they didn't address the elephant in the room, which is where the money is going. NIH budget is still north of $30 billion. That's not chump change. But let's say the two guys profiled here are as good as advertised. Why couldn't they get a grant? Because almost all the money goes to old, established scientists. Barely any goes to young women and men. The most funded demographic across all NIH institutes is scientists in their 60s, even though experience and evidence shows that people are most creative and productive when they're young.

This is a result of otherizing, according to my wild speculation. I think the study sections are all populated by old men and women, so the grants go to people who look like them: old people. Exacerbating the issue is that older people have more experience writing grants, so playing the game is easier still. Writing grants is a difficult, subtle brand of advertising oneself.

The story's claim that only safe science is getting funded seems unsupported, and they don't offer a lot of evidence. Safe science has always been funded, because it's easy to understand. Part of the problem is that in order to write a grant, you need a lot of "preliminary data." That is, you need successful studies that support a hypothesis you're trying to prove or disprove. Makes a lot of sense, right?

The NIH has tried some strategies to encourage giving grants to younger researcher, such as giving bonus points to young and early career scientists. These have had a very minimal effect, because in order to get bonus points, you need to get "scored" to begin with, which means that your grant has to be in the top 50%, which most young scientists' grants are not without explanation. It's terribly frustrating, but not insurmountable.

The good thing about going into grad school now is that you'll have five years to be protected, then a couple more as a post-doc. You're looking at 7-10 years before you have to worry about it. Maybe the economy will be better, and the GOP will be less in control then than they are now. A lot can change in a decade. Also, as more labs fail, supply and demand will tend to bring funding levels back up. My advice is to pick a well funded lab in which to learn, because you want to have freedom, learn science, and learn grant writing. Write fellowships and small grants while in grad school, and make sure your adviser knows that's your intent before you start. It's a great career, but there are certainly challenges in this day and age.