Tufts researchers are expressing concern over President Donald Trump’s attempt to halt federal research grants and cap the National Institutes of Health’s funding for indirect research costs at 15%, though a federal judge temporarily blocked the action earlier this month.
Tufts’ indirect cost rate is 56%, which makes a potential 15% cap a significant reduction in federal funding, according to Catherine Freudenreich, chair of the biology department. Tufts could lose as much as $20 million of its preexisting $26.9 million worth of federal support, according to Patrick Collins, executive director of media relations.
“That just doesn’t cover what it costs to run a lab,” Freudenreich said.
“While there are still many unknowns, we are working directly with our researchers to keep them informed, and we are proactively preparing for potential impacts,” Bernard Arulanandam, vice provost for research, wrote in a statement to the Daily.
University President Sunil Kumar announced last week that Tufts is part of a lawsuit against the NIH over the change alongside the American Association of Universities, the American Council of Education and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. The plaintiffs allege that the funding restriction is against the federal Administrative Procedure Act, “and, therefore, are in violation of the law,” Kumar wrote.
The distribution of NIH funds to universities and research centers, Freudenreich said, has supported a lot of the nation’s fundamental, Nobel Prize-winning research.
“The reason why we’ve done so well with research is because of that funding,” she said.
NIH funds support more than 200 projects across the university, according to Kumar’s email, which would be put at risk if the cuts are enacted.
“We actually don’t know what that looks like, but we’re very concerned. Could it mean closing of labs? Downsizing of labs? … All those things are on the table right now,” Freudenreich said.
“I’ve had an NIH grant since my first year at Tufts,” she said. “It’s been a mainstay of support for my lab.”
Sarah Hengel, an assistant professor in biology with a lab funded by an NIH grant, said that federal funding for the research she conducts is crucial.
“We really rely on federal funding. And there’s not just the NIH, there are also other institutes, like the [National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration].”
Catie Kean, a senior in the biology department, shared uncertainties surrounding the federal grant the lab she researches at receives.
“We were supposed to get another installment, and it’s usually just a procedural thing to get this installment, but because of the freeze, we didn’t know whether we were going to get the next installment or not.” Kean said, “There was a really big concern in my lab about being able to pay people.”
Should federal funding be paused or heavily decreased, researchers are worried that there aren’t other sources of funding they can turn to.
“Everybody in the department is on edge,” she said. “Everybody in the department is terrified and nothing is normal. No one can think about anything else.”
Funding cuts would slow down existing research projects by creating the added complexity of applying for alternative grants, according to Brett Nava-Coulter, a lecturer in the sociology department.
“It just creates inefficiencies in the system when you could just be doing the science or the research and now you have to be your own fundraiser,” Nava-Coulter said.
If the indirect funding cap goes into effect, Freudenreich noted that it could affect the amount of opportunities offered to undergraduate students.
“I’m most concerned about my students, my master’s students, my Ph.D. students, my [undergraduates]; these are students I choose to mentor and really care a lot about. I really care a lot about the future and their success,” Hengel said.
Although not all projects would stop immediately if federal funds are frozen, Kean said that cuts could threaten even current research progress.
“Any disruption is really bad in terms of jeopardizing existing research and years of scientific development,” Kean said.
At the moment, the consequences are difficult to predict with certainty. “It is premature to speculate on the impact of the orders because they are still unfolding and guidance from agencies regarding compliance is, at the time of this writing, still evolving,” Arulanandam wrote.
