Lily Huynh/The Cougar
Since taking office, the Trump administration has made a point of cutting down government spending. From Medicaid to national parks, it seems few organizations are safe from the chopping block.
One of these recent cuts lies with the National Institutes of Health, which announced on Feb. 7 that research grants would be restricted to a mere 15% in indirect funding. This, to put it simply, would be catastrophic for research institutes, and poses a major threat to higher education.
When the NIH issues a federal grant for a project, a certain amount is added on top of the initial grant to cover indirect costs. These costs cover things like equipment, infrastructure and personnel, which would otherwise need to be covered by the research institution.
To put it simply, research can’t be done if there’s no money allocated to keeping the lights on in a lab, or paying workers to maintain the spaces being used. And if the government isn’t paying for it, the affected institutions now lacking funds will have to fill in the gaps.
When it comes to university research, indirect funds can be very costly. Prominent schools such as Harvard and Yale have had indirect rates over 60%, and UH’s current negotiated rates lie at 57%. These funds are integral to their respective institutions.
Knowing this, it’s clear that these sudden slashes in funding will be a major issue for universities, no matter how much Trump’s administration has dismissed the costs. Higher education is not simply a path to a degree, but also a host to innovation and growth that benefits the American people as a whole.
University research programs not only provide students, both graduate and undergraduate, with learning opportunities, but also contribute to important scientific discoveries. Vaccine research is a great example of this, as many vaccine breakthroughs have been made by university researchers funded by the NIH.
These programs are integral in developing our future scientists. If not for educational institutions undertaking the research projects they do, we would not have many of the scientific and technological advancements we do today. In addition, many students would not receive the proper experience needed for their careers.
In 2023, $9 billion of NIH funds went into indirect costs of research grants, out of a $35 billion total. With the proposed 15% cap upheld, this amount would be reduced by about $4 billion.
If these budget cuts are not corrected, universities will be forced to either shut down research programs or raise tuition to meet financial needs. If not completely halted, institutions would need to offer fewer research positions to students. This would especially affect less wealthy schools with smaller endowment funds.
For now, the future of research institutions is foggy. With lawsuits being filed by many universities and other organizations, it remains unclear if the drastic budget cuts will wind up going through. For the sake of our country’s researchers, one can only hope not.
Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at [email protected]
