Trump's mass firings could have ripple effects

Harvard University is imposing a temporary freeze on hiring faculty. Columbia University is grappling with cuts to $400 million in federal funding. California Institute of Technology is leaving postdoctoral positions unfilled. A University of Washington researcher is wondering about a climate and health grant after a government site was taken offline. These are just some of the disruptions that resulted from President Donald Trump’s sweeping changes to the federal government. Though the private sector has historically provided more funding for research and development in the US, experts say, Trump’s mass firings and freezing of billions of dollars appropriated by Congress could have ripple effects on the US scientific enterprise for years to come.

Many personnel and financial cuts are being made under the banner of streamlining government — an idea championed by billionaire Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency — while some funding cancellations and threats are tied to allegations of antisemitism on campus. Several of these moves have been challenged in court, and the implementation of some have been put on hold. But research has already been halted in some places and thrust others into limbo, according to interviews with more than 25 professors, graduate students, other academic researchers, and experts across the public, private and non-profit sectors.

The cutbacks risk slowing the pipeline of US-grown science talent, experts warn. And should Congress enshrine them, it would radically alter a system that’s allowed the US to become a world-leading hub for research since World War II. (This is possible in the short-term spending legislation under debate as a possible government shutdown looms or in the next longer-term budget). “This is an ecosystem that benefits everyone and has kept the US at the forefront,” Fiona Harrison, the chair of Caltech’s division of physics, mathematics and astronomy, writes in an email. “The situation is jeopardising our Nation’s ability to stay at the forefront of science and engineering by reducing or eliminating a generation of young technical talent,” she adds. The government has been an essential source of data for fields from weather to health. Investment in the National Weather Service (NWS) and its support functions, for example, has enabled the growth of a commercial weather forecasting industry. Those systems generate at least $85 billion in economic benefits, or more than 20 times what the government spends, according to Jeffrey Lazo, an independent economist who tracks the value of U.S. forecasting services. “Without the federal data and observations, it would be very difficult to say there would be any private weather enterprise,” he says.

Due to recent firings and voluntary departures of hundreds of people at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which oversees the NWS, three local forecasting offices have cut back on collecting basic data, with one site in Kotzebue, Alaska, discontinuing weather balloon launches altogether. “The remote launch sites are where some of the most valuable data comes from,” says John Dean, co-founder of AI weather forecasting startup WindBorne Systems. “Losing these observations means that our forecast quality will degrade.” The company — which collects data using its own weather balloons — is talking with the NOAA about how it can fill newly created gaps, Dean says. The agency confirmed it was in touch with the startup, adding the matter is “still under review at NWS.”

In February, the National Institutes of Health said it was slashing rates to 15% for overhead in grants, which awardees can use to cover the indirect costs of everything from building maintenance to tech support. The institute commonly covers more than half of those costs. While a Massachusetts district court judge put a hold on cuts, the potential change is weighing on researchers. “Every day, there’s something new and something I was not ready for and my colleagues weren’t ready for,” says Alexandra Tate, a University of Chicago sociologist and lecturer. She has two NIH grant proposals, worth nearly $650,000 combined, in limbo. “I don’t know where my career’s going from here.” Grant cancellations at other agencies are already leading to job losses. The Social Security Administration notified researchers at a consortium of six academic centers that their multi-year grant worth more than $70 million was abruptly canceled on Feb. 20, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, a researcher impacted by the grant cancellation and chair of the economic department at the New School in New York City. (She is a former columnist at Bloomberg Opinion.)

This canceled grant — which funded research into retirement that informed federal policymaking — has impacted the work of more than 50 people at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, including the termination of five senior researchers, says Ghilarducci, who anticipates more job losses at the other centers. The White House, Social Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services didn’t respond to requests for comment. As individual researchers wrestle with funding restrictions, U.S. universities are responding by limiting spending in ways that will impact operations over the coming calendar years. Harvard, Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have all recently announced hiring freezes.

Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins University is cutting almost 2,000 positions globally and about 250 in the US following the termination of more than $800 million in US Agency for International Development grants. The university is the top recipient of research funding and NIH money. “This is not one standard deviation away from normal. This is not even two standard deviations away from normal. This is way out on the extreme,” says Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a computer scientist at Brown University and an assistant director in former President Joe Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Researchers at the start of their careers are particularly vulnerable. West Virginia University says it’s limiting admission to health science doctoral programs due to “unforeseen budgetary challenges.” Citing “uncertainties with funding” and high acceptance rates, Iowa State University says some departments have rescinded offers to graduate students who hadn’t formally accepted their spots.

“Unfortunately, the full force of the Trump cuts on science were only evident after we sent offers to grad students,” says Harrison, the Caltech chair. While the university won’t rescind offers, she says, “we will very likely be drastically reducing admissions next year” and may even not admit “any graduate students at all in many areas of science and math.” The US economy has been intimately tied to the science enterprise since World War II. The Federal Bank of Dallas estimates that the rate of return for non-defense government research and development over the past 80 years ranges between 150% and 300%, suggesting that this federal funding effectively pays for itself over time. While the private sector provides the largest share of R&D funding in the US, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal government provides a crucial backstop, including for science with no immediate hope of commercialisation.

The private sector would feel the impact of losing “basic research in areas that they do not and cannot fund themselves,” warns Diane Souvaine, a computer scientist at Tufts University and former NSF board chair. “We would miss out on key areas and run the risk of technological surprise if there is too much federal pullback.” A drop in graduate students would also result in a shallower pool of experts for the biotech industry to hire, says Northwestern University stem cell biologist and NIH grant recipient Carole LaBonne. As uncertainty grips U.S. research institutions, other countries are trying to poach American talent. At least one French university is pitching itself as a “safe place for science.”

China, too, has been ramping up recruitment. “We are already seeing China advertise for fired scientists to move and work there,” says California Representative Zoe Lofgren, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, in an emailed statement. “We would be utterly foolish if we decided to give up the preeminence that we have had in scientific research,” says Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president and molecular biologist.

Tribune News Service