Chaos at the National Institutes of Health: A Looming Crisis for Universities
The academic world is in an uproar as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) faces sudden and mysterious disruptions under the Trump administration. Senior university administrators are sounding the alarm, with one bluntly summarizing the situation as "fuck." The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has abruptly halted all public communication from several health agencies, including the NIH, and has suspended grant-review committee meetings until at least February 1. This move has sent shockwaves through the academic community, particularly because the NIH is the lifeblood of university research funding.
"This will halt science and devastate research budgets in universities."
Jane Liebschutz, a medical doctor and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, minced no words about the consequences of the grant-review shutdown. "This will halt science and devastate research budgets in universities," she wrote on Bluesky. Similarly, UCLA professor Lindsay Wiley warned that the pause in NIH grant distribution "will have long-term effects on medicine & short-term effects on state, higher education & hospital budgets. This affects all of us, not just researchers." Even if the chaos subsides next month, the damage could be severe and long-lasting, leaving universities vulnerable for years to come.
" NIH funds a major portion of the research that gets done on campus…
The NIH is the most critical source of research funding for universities, contributing an astonishing $33 billion in research grants in 2023 alone—more than half of all federal spending on academic R&D. This funding doesn’t just pay for research itself but also supports the broader operations of universities, from state-of-the-art facilities to the salaries of researchers and staff. Take that away, and universities are left staring into a financial abyss. Holden Thorp, editor in chief of Science and a former university chancellor and provost, explains that while some universities with robust clinical revenue might weather the storm, many others could be destabilized even by a small interruption in NIH funding.
" NIH money funds everything from basic science research…
The NIH isn’t just a financial lifeline; it also provides funding in a way that benefits researchers and their institutions in multiple ways. For starters, NIH grants are generally larger than those from other agencies, reducing the administrative burden on researchers who would otherwise spend countless hours writing proposals for smaller grants. NIH also offers "modular" allocations, allowing researchers to request standardized funding amounts without the hassle of itemizing every budget detail. This flexibility frees up more time for actual science.
Another key benefit of NIH grants is the payment for "indirect costs," which cover the overhead required to conduct research. These costs include everything from lab equipment and facility maintenance to salaries for postdoctoral researchers. NIH funds these overhead costs at some of the highest rates in the federal government, often exceeding 60%. For every $1 million awarded to a researcher, their university receives an additional $600,000 to cover these expenses. These indirect costs are so critical that many universities rely on them to balance their budgets.
" The problem is, schools almost always have to spend more money to support research than they take in from grants."
The reality is that university research operations often run at a loss, with grant funding failing to cover the full cost of research. Despite this, universities continue to prioritize research because it is central to their mission and helps them compete for top talent and better rankings. Any long-term disruption to NIH funding could plunge universities into a full-blown financial crisis. Holden Thorp acknowledges that while some universities might be able to absorb the shock, others could be pushed to the brink.
" If the viability of university research, and of universities themselves, can be so upended by a disarrangement of a single unit of the Department of Health and Human Services, then what might be coming next?"
The current chaos at the NIH may be just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration has already made its disdain for academia clear, with policies like linking NIH grants to measures of free speech on campus and requiring federal grant recipients to account for their DEI initiatives. These actions suggest a broader assault on higher education, with the NIH shutdown serving as either a test or a warning. As one university administrator put it, the situation is unsettling, but panic isn’t the answer. "It’s best to keep calm and carry on," Holden Thorp advises. Still, the uncertainty hanging over the NIH—and the universities that depend on it—casts a long shadow over the future of research in America.
In conclusion, the NIH funding disruption is more than just a temporary inconvenience; it signals a potential era of chaos and unpredictability for universities under the Trump administration. Whether this is a fleeting disruption or a harbinger of worse things to come, one thing is clear: the stakes couldn’t be higher for the future of science, medicine, and higher education in America.