Grants are a tool for the federal government to provide financial support for projects that benefit society. Grants are essential in scientific research because discoveries often take years or even decades to yield tangible benefits. During this time, grants provide the necessary financial support for labs to continue their work, ensuring that promising research isn’t abandoned due to a lack of immediate returns. In the meantime, these grants help labs purchase equipment, train new researchers, and present their findings, allowing future scientists to build on the research.
Historically, government-funded projects have made significant contributions to scientific discoveries. One of the most notable examples is the Human Genome Project, an international initiative to map and sequence every gene in the entire human genome, which was completed in 2003. Beyond this decade-long project’s scientific discoveries, it also generated immense amounts of economic gain. The project contributed an estimated $1 trillion to the U.S. economy, with every dollar spent yielding a $178 return. More recently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has played a critical role in drug development, with 99.4% of new market drugs in the past decade receiving at least partial funding from the NIH. These drugs have helped treat cancers, infectious diseases, neurological disorders, and more.
NIH grants are essential in driving scientific discoveries and advancing life-saving treatments. As seen during the COVID-19 shutdowns, even a temporary pause can delay scientific research by weeks or months, disrupting progress. To understand how these policies affect Duke's research community, I spoke with Dr. David Sherwood, a Biology professor and principal investigator at Duke University. He emphasized that the NIH freeze will have far-reaching consequences that will “trickle up to biomedical industries, medicine, and society as a whole.”
Above: National Institute of Health building. Image courtesy of David Malakoff.
What is the NIH freeze?
In the past month, the Trump administration has dealt numerous devastating blows to scientific research, affecting agencies including the NIH, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Science Foundation (NSF). Here’s a breakdown of several key changes in the month since Trump’s inauguration:
Starting on January 21st, numerous NIH grant reviewing panels were unexpectedly canceled due to an external communication freeze. These review sessions, often planned months in advance, involve numerous scientists and are a critical step in the funding process. As a result, any cancellation, temporary or long-term, would cause a domino effect in delays for the foreseeable future. To this day, grant review sessions have not been able to proceed, and, as the suspension continues, the research process becomes further backlogged.
A week later, on January 27th, Donald Trump issued an order to freeze all federal loans, including NIH grants. Although several lawsuits have been filed against the order, grant review committees remain frozen, blocking the distribution of scientific funding.
On February 7th, the NIH announced plans to cap indirect cost reimbursements at a flat rate of 15%. Dr. Kelly Hogan, Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Biology at Duke University, explained that these costs include research facilities, equipment upkeep and repair, data storage, university support staff, and much more. These reimbursements are crucial for keeping research institutions running, as grants typically cover only project-specific expenses, not the operational costs necessary to sustain the research environment. Currently, universities receive an average negotiated rate of 27 to 28%. For Duke, which currently receives a rate of 61.5 %, this policy would lead to a $198 million deficit in funding. According to an email sent by Executive Vice President Daniel Ennis on March 13th, Duke is at risk of losing an additional $500 million. Some have questioned why universities can’t use their endowments to offset these losses. In reality, this money is tied up in contractual obligations, preventing universities from using it to cover research expenses. While lawsuits have temporarily blocked this order, it casts uncertainty on the future of research.
Above: The economic impact of research funded by NIH in 2023. Image courtesy of Duke University.
One of the latest blows to the research foundation has been the massive NIH layoffs throughout February and the growing number of hiring freezes at universities in March. In February, over 1,200 NIH employees (over 5% of its workforce) were fired. Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced an additional 1,200 employee layoff at the NIH, part of a total of 20,000 federal health workers, including five leaders. These layoffs have mostly affected employees who screen grant applications, creating more backlog. A further delay in distributing funds would cause any surplus money provided to be cancelled, as well as create legal issues for the NIH. In academia, over a dozen universities have announced hiring freezes for a multitude of reasons, including the NIH grant freeze. In a recent email, Duke has also begun a hiring freeze to manage potential deficits.
Overall, the past month of uncertainty has left 16,000 grants in limbo, freezing around $1.5 billion in funding. However, there are new developments each week. On February 26th, the Trump administration lifted some restrictions, allowing a limited number of scientific review sessions to be scheduled. While this is a step towards resuming research funding, the long-term outlook remains uncertain.
Fear in the Research Community
These policy shifts have not only altered the research landscape but have also transformed the atmosphere within academic institutions. Dr. Sherwood sees that the scientific community at Duke has been thrown into disarray, with scientists feeling “hurt, confused, and angry” about these changes. Each new policy adds to the growing fear of what may happen next.
Dr. Sherwood has witnessed a pervasive sense of fear consuming the research community across universities nationwide. With uncertainty clouding the future, many research labs are reluctant to pursue new research and hesitant to hire new postdoctoral fellows, without the promise of vital funding. Some graduate schools have cut their programs by half or even paused for the upcoming year, with some schools even rescinding students’ offers. Additionally, several graduate training programs have been cancelled, leaving many undergraduate students unsure where their future stands.
Above: Potential risks for North Carolina’s research community. Image courtesy of Duke University.
What Happens Next?
With the numerous lawsuits challenging the NIH freeze, the future of research is constantly changing. However, in the meantime, Dr. Sherwood emphasized that the best scientists can do is to be patient and steadfast, continuing their work with resilience and determination. Despite the uncertainty, many principal investigators and research labs are pushing forward, believing that while funding remains precarious, this period of instability will pass.
Beyond the immediate concerns, Dr. Sherwood believes that these sudden policy changes should serve as a wake-up call for universities’ overreliance on government funding. The current crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities in the system, indicating the need for alternative funding sources. As a potential solution, Dr. Sherwood suggested greater collaboration between private companies and research institutions. Strengthening partnerships between universities and private companies could create a more reliable network for training scientists and supporting their transition into research careers. At the same time, direct industry funding for graduate and postdoctoral research could serve as a safeguard, reducing reliance on government grants and ensuring that scientific progress continues despite shifting policies.
