Princeton must protect the sanctity of scientific research

Over the last few weeks, academic research has been thrust into the spotlight as the Trump administration pushes for an adjustment on the cap on indirect research costs from an average of 27–28 percent to just 15 percent. Indirect, or overhead, costs account for all research expenses that can’t be covered by direct funding from individual studies, such as energy cost, building maintenance, and administrative services. Richard Huganir, a professor at Johns Hopkins, argues that these costs are “essential for modern-day research” and that reducing this funding so dramatically is “the apocalypse of American science.” Princeton groups are already starting to feel the effects, with the recent announcement of a hiring freeze for University faculty and layoffs at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory stemming from uncertainties of federal funding. As a new cost-cutting administration takes the stage, we members of the on-campus community — students, administration, and faculty — must firmly stand in support of federal funding for academic research, which is diametrically opposed to the alleged inefficiency that the administration is targeting, and is a necessity for the development of the country.

Indirect funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsors numerous necessary aspects of the research process, from paying for lab electricity costs and information technology costs to replacing lab equipment and maintaining other lab infrastructure. The verdict is clear: If the NIH takes away these funds, universities would be on their own to secure funding for indirect costs and risk shutting down labs and funded projects. Last year, Princeton negotiated the indirect research costs the government would reimburse to 64 percent, in line with other highly-endowed private universities like Harvard, but four times that of the Trump administration’s proposed cap. If the adjustment on indirect funding is pushed through, our $298 million in federal research funding will be at significant risk.

The current federal administration is propagating accusations of inefficiency against scientific research — currently the main target of these NIH cuts — due to the direction of a high percentage of funding into indirect costs at many institutions. This funding, however, is generative of invaluable economic yield. It is estimated that for every dollar of funding the NIH receives, they generate approximately $2.46 of economic activity, a 146 percent return on investment. This yield consists of a variety of outputs, including patents, career training, and biomedical research essential to pharmaceutical drug development, all of which would be significantly affected by cutting four billion dollars of indirect cost funding. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 echoed this in his recent article in The Atlantic, explaining that “the United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security … The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University [presents] the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”

The proposed NIH budget cuts are proving to diminish the work of NIH-funded research while making it significantly more inefficient. In light of the administration’s block on grant reviews, the NIH moved to cancel federal meetings, including grant review boards that were ongoing for thousands of grant applications. Although a federal injunction was filed, and the NIH is recommencing review of grant applications, it is estimated that there remain 16,000 delayed grant proposals vying for their share of $1.5 billion of federal funding. Even as judicial action is taken to counteract these harmful measures, this represents a troubling trend in the administration’s view of scientific research. As NIH funding is stranded in the bureaucratic backwaters of the Trump administration, academia and the nation as a whole lose with it the immense opportunity to advance our research, improve our public health, and sustain value for our intellectualism and education.

As the administration continues to decide what components of the federal government to defund, we must stand up and push back against defunding research, specifically as members of an institution that may face a significant reduction in federal funding for scientific research. Beyond being instrumental in making advancements towards better technology, infrastructure, and healthcare, scientific research yields pure economic benefits that must be considered as well. As it stands, the NIH is an investment that provides us with a means to deepen our knowledge while bringing in millions of jobs, fostering new innovations and industries, and making instrumental progress towards a better future — which will all be significantly impeded by budget cuts.

Davis Hobley is a columnist for The Daily Princetonian and a member of the Class of 2027 who intends to major in Neuroscience. He hails from Rochester, Mich. and can be reached by email at dh2172[at]princeton.edu or his personal Instagram @davis_20.23.