The Diminishing of American Science

Have the recent (or anticipated) federal budget cuts affected your lab?
 

The changes directed by the NIH memo to cut facilities and administration costs (F&A) have been stayed by the courts, so they have not yet directly affected my laboratory. However, I have some non-competing grant renewals coming up and I am anxious to see if they get paid given the chaos at NIH. The cancellation of council meetings at NIH has resulted in delay in the issuance of notice of awards (NOAs), and delays in study section review of proposals will push back funding of successful grants.  

How could they affect your lab in the long run?
 

If lawsuits fail to prevent the decreases in facilities and administration costs (F&A) ordered by NIH, all labs will have less money to pay staff and conduct research because F&A costs will likely be shifted to direct costs. I should note that the way universities negotiate F&A costs has previously been codified in law, and much of the F&A cost is used to fund the personnel required to administer the regulations required by the NIH (e.g. IRB, IACUC, export control, COI, Title IX, pre-award, post award, etc). 

What do you perceive as the long-term consequences of these policy changes on analytical science in the US?
 

I fear that even if the current proposed changes in funding are blocked or rescinded, the current administration will look for another way to cut NSF and NIH budgets. Regardless of how cuts are made, the outcome will hurt all American science and the American economy. For instance, research grants include travel money for researchers to attend conferences. If even that one item is cut or restricted in NIH funding, it would interfere with information sharing, the development of future collaborations – and would devastate the conference industry and the cities that depend on that business. 

How might analytical science globally be affected?
 

The US Government has already put more controls on collaborations with foreign countries. There is much more oversight. Ironically, the oversight occurs within our institutions by personnel paid for by F&A. I fear that the new changes proposed by this administration would impede developments in analytical science and would put American scientists at a disadvantage globally. 

Analytical science has a profound impact on the world. With this in mind, if analytical science is affected, how might the world be affected?
 

In the long run it won’t be good. Many graduate programs are currently cutting back on offers to graduate school and this will have a long-term impact. Industry depends heavily on PhD analytical students. The American scientific board of HPLC recognizes that industrial jobs are so attractive for American LC trained students that very few seek academic jobs, so a reduction in the number of analytical graduate students will profoundly impact industry and will further diminish the number of analytical scientists in academia to train future generations.

Overall, what is your view on what’s happening?
 

The changes the current government is attempting to make to American science will greatly diminish our scientific standing in the world.

Is there any room for optimism?
 

I want to believe in the rule of law, and most of the actions being taken are violating long standing law. Traditionally, congress has supported the NIH and NSF on a bipartisan basis because researchers in every state receive funding and congressional reps are proud of their NIH and NSF funded researchers. I imagine that every University president was calling their Senators about this situation to explain the far-reaching damage the cuts would do. I always knew when my NIH grant was about to be awarded because I would get an email from the office of my congressional representative congratulating me. NIH wisely informs congressional reps when a grant is coming to their districts. Let’s hope these representatives fight for their constituents.