‘Terrifying’ long-term threat to global research from US cuts

Federal funding cuts are already impacting leading US institutions’ hiring and spending plans, but scholars have warned that the long-term threats to research are “terrifying”.

Donald Trump’s unprecedented start to his second term almost immediately threatened the ability of the sector to conduct research, with freezes on funding and the targeting of equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and universities have started to respond.

Yale University announced a reduction in spending on faculty pay rises, staff hiring and campus construction. It joined Stanford University, Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which have all enacted hiring freezes in recent weeks.

Sandy Baum, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and professor emerita of economics at Skidmore College, said slashing research funds as Trump has done was a “huge loss” for universities, putting them “terribly at risk”.

“I know these are rich organisations, but…there are limits to their resources and if they lose these millions and millions of dollars, they’re in big trouble. So it’s not at all surprising that they would be cautious and trying to figure out how to prepare for the worst.

“It’s terrifying. We are all talking about this all the time, but…everybody feels powerless.”

Students are being affected now as well. The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh are reducing admissions across some departments.

In recent days, the Trump administration also launched a comprehensive review of Columbia University’s federal contracts and grants over its “ongoing inaction in the face of relentless harassment of Jewish students”.

Baum said replacing federal funds was a “pretty tall order” and some research institutions might be forced to close, but that these historic institutions are not likely to go under.

“It’s not like Columbia and Cornell are going to cease to exist, but their research arms could shrink considerably, and they could end up having to operate quite differently,” she said.

“They will at least temporarily have to change some of their focus and cut back some of the very valuable things that they do.”

Some colleges have halted spending. Stanford recently dropped its four-year plan to purchase a new campus.

With impacts already being seen on college operations, cuts and freezes, Phillip Levine, professor of economics at Wellesley College, said the sector was anxious about “the next shoe to drop”.

“It is unclear whether any of the steps already taken will stand or whether threatened future cuts will occur, but the stress of the uncertainty is palpable,” he said.

In such a difficult environment to influence change, Levine said it was unclear exactly what the right response was.

“College leaders have gone through a difficult period recently, lessening the strength of their voices,” he said.

“And the impact on higher education is just one of many substantive issues on the plates of policymakers, some of which clearly dominate in terms of national priorities.”

If the actions taken by the administration are allowed to proceed by the courts, they will have a significant impact on institutions’ ability to conduct federally funded research, according to Nathan Daun-Barnett, associate professor of educational leadership and policy at the University at Buffalo.

In the face of such uncertainty, research-intensive institutions are therefore behaving conservatively in slowing research productivity and hiring, he said.

But in the longer term, Daun-Barnett warned that it will undermine the infrastructure the sector relies upon to conduct federal research – both scientific and administrative.

“We can ride out a pause, but an extended reduction will result in diminished capacity and less publicly funded research,” he said.

“Colleges will turn to the private sector when they can, but public dollars are best utilised for basic research and the private sector has been reluctant to spend on those early discovery phases of research.”

Baum said eliminating funding for research means the world will not find solutions to the biggest problems, such as cancer, as quickly as it would have.

“There’s certainly going to be a slowdown in medicine and technology and other areas where federal research is really important,” she said.

“That doesn’t end the world, but it does mean that people’s lives will not improve in a way that we could help them to improve.”

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com