Viewpoint From our Founding Director
This op-ed originally appeared in MedPage Today as “Dismantling the American Research Enterprise.” This was part of their review of the past year’s biggest events, and serves as a companion to his earlier op-ed.
By Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D.
Since the Trump administration’s antagonistic actions against universities this spring, the direct attack on Harvard has ceased, at least temporarily, and most of the lost grant funding has been restored.
Yet, we in academic medicine still have much to fear.
America’s leadership for the past 75 years was based not just on military might, but on a unique “social contract” between the federal government and the scientific community. This framework was simple: the government would provide robust funding and scientific autonomy, and in return, the academic scientific research enterprise would drive national health, prosperity, and security. In the last 9 months, that contract has been shredded.
Key to this contract was the understanding that science must be free from political manipulation to be effective. But with each month that passes, we see an increasing loss of scientific autonomy with a concomitant increase in political oversight of research funding and an emphasis on ideology over evidence-based decisions. The Trump administration has systematically replaced independent experts with political appointees or industry representatives and aggressively restructured various scientific advisory boards. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to fire and replace the entire CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is a prime example.
While Congress continues to be supportive of science, the executive branch has proposed significant reductions in funding for the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and it has used its impoundment powers to freeze appropriated funds. In a recent visit to Boston, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, announced a new emphasis on “geographic balance” in funding decisions, suggesting an end to the scientific meritocracy that has been critical for the U.S. to lead in research.
Equally concerning is the administration’s proposal to cut support for “indirect costs.” These funds are a lifeline for the nation’s research laboratories because they cover the “costs of doing business”—to keep the lights on, maintain hazardous waste disposal, and support the complex compliance infrastructure required for any institution to receive government funding. The proposed reduction of indirect cost reimbursements to 15% will force universities and academic hospitals to either shift funds from education and clinical care to cover research or shut down research operations. Unfortunately, the latter is already happening, with many institutions announcing staff layoffs and universities closing or reducing the size of graduate programs.
The final decisions on research funding remain to be worked out. However, what is clear is that this government has effectively discarded its social contract with the scientific community. We are watching the dismantling of the American research enterprise, and this self-sabotage could not come at a worse time. The economic competitiveness of the 21st century will be decided by leadership in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and clean energy. By defunding the basic research and technology innovation that underpins these industries, we are ceding economic ground to other nations. The stalling of medical research also means delays in development of treatments for Alzheimer’s, stroke, sepsis, and numerous other diseases that will be measured in human lives.
And while we dismantle our infrastructure, other nations are aggressively expanding their own. China has nearly closed the gap in research and development spending and has already surpassed the U.S. in the number of top-cited researchers. We are actively ceding leadership in medicine as China outpaces us in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceuticals. The “America First” approach will also sever our international ties, making it difficult to know where the competition lies. The open lines of communication that were maintained by scientists in the U.S. and Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s helped us get through the Cold War. We might not have that option in the future.
Even if research funds were restored and indirect cost reimbursement retained, much damage has already been done. The consequences of these actions are already visible in the erosion of our human capital. Science is a global marketplace for talent, and the world is watching our retreat. Applications from top international students — the workforce that powers American labs — are threatened as visa restrictions tighten and the reputation of the U.S. as a safe harbor for inquiry collapses. The “brain drain” from America has already begun: the best and brightest are increasingly unlikely to stay here or even choose science as a career in this uncertain research landscape.
Is there anything we can do? We could just bite the bullet and buy into this new client-provider model where scientific output is expected to conform to political objectives. But as Albert Einstein said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Reversing this catastrophe requires a renewed commitment to the independence of scientific inquiry. We must guarantee stable, predictable funding that allows researchers to plan for years, not months. And crucially, we must signal to the world that the U.S. is once again open for business for the world’s brightest minds. Thus, if we don’t want to erode our nation’s technological advantage and surrender our competitive edge, we need to speak out and vote. And we must work hard to communicate the importance of science and innovation to our families, friends, neighbors, and business associates, not only for the health of our loved ones, but for America’s economic engine and biosecurity. The battle is far from over.