Tag: research

  • Harvard University devotes $250M to sustain research hit by federal cuts

    Harvard University devotes $250M to sustain research hit by federal cuts

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Harvard University will put $250 million of its own funds toward research affected by the ongoing wave of federal cuts, according to a Wednesday announcement. 
    • Since last week, Harvard has received “a large number of grant terminations from the federal government,” President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning said in a campuswide message. The funding disruptions are halting “lifesaving research and, in some cases, losing years of important work,” they said.
    • Harvard is taking the same tack as Northwestern and Johns Hopkins universities, which announced in April they would use institutional dollars to cover the cost of ongoing research hit by cuts.

    Dive Insight:

    Northwestern and Johns Hopkins began self-funding some of their own research after hundreds of millions of their federal funding had been lost or frozen due to the Trump administration.

    Since Trump retook office, several federal agencies have abruptly changed their funding policies, cutting off billions in grants and contracts with little to no warning. The National Institutes of Health alone slashed $1.8 billion in a little over a month, according to findings published in JAMA last week. 

    Harvard is now similarly self-funding affected research. But the federal government’s attacks against it outpace those directed at many of its peers. 

    Last month, the Trump administration canceled over $2.2 billion in federal funds to Harvard after the Ivy League institution publicly rebuked its ultimatums, arguing they overstepped the federal government’s authority. Among the demands, the administration sought a third-party audit of the viewpoints of university employees and students and wanted Harvard to selectively curtain the power of certain employees based on their activism. 

    The university is now bracing for even more cuts and mounting a legal battle against the Trump administration to regain its federal funding. 

    The university intends to fight the government’s “unlawful freeze and termination” of many of its grants and is doing what it can in the interim, Garber and Manning said Wednesday.

    “Although we cannot absorb the entire cost of the suspended or canceled federal funds, we will mobilize financial resources to support critical research activity for a transitional period as we continue to work with our researchers to identify alternative funding sources,” they said.

    They added that the university will advocate for “the productive partnership between the federal government and research universities” that has existed for over eight decades.

    Over 50 higher ed organizations, led by the American Council on Education, made a similar plea in a joint statement Wednesday.

    “The entire country benefits when policymakers and higher education leaders respect a common understanding of the vital role colleges and universities play in advancing the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the United States,” the organizations said.

    They argued that the release of research funds should not be contingent on which students colleges enroll, what programs they offer or how they oversee their instructors. The signatories also include the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the New England Commission of Higher Education, Harvard’s accreditor.

    Prior to its announcement Wednesday, Harvard had already implemented a hiring freeze for the spring semester. And dozens of faculty members have pledged 10% of their salaries to shore up against the “severe financial damage” the university faces as it takes the Trump administration to court.

    Garber recently made a similar pledge. He will take a voluntary 25% pay cut beginning in July, a university spokesperson said Thursday. 

    Harvard has not yet publicly disclosed the new president’s salary. But his predecessors have made north of $1 million annually, meaning his voluntary pay cut in fiscal 2026 would likely net the university six-figure savings.

    Garber, a longstanding Harvard employee, has taken a pay reduction during turbulent financial times before. As provost, Garber took a 25% cut in 2020 in response to the pandemic, as did the university’s then-president and executive vice president.

    Source link

  • National Science Foundation faces lawsuit over 15% indirect research cap

    National Science Foundation faces lawsuit over 15% indirect research cap

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

      Dive Brief:

    • A group of universities and higher education associations is suing the National Science Foundation over its new cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs for all future college grants.
    • In court documents filed Monday, the plaintiffs — led by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities — allege the unilateral 15% cap, which took effect May 5, violates the law in “myriad respects” and that its effects will be “immediate and irreparable.”
    • The new lawsuit follows two other legal challenges over similar caps implemented by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy — both of which have been blocked, at least temporarily.

    Dive Insight:

    NIH implemented the first federal cap on indirect research costs in February. Colleges and higher ed groups sued, and a federal judge permanently blocked the agency’s plan last month. 

    In the ruling, the judge said NIH unlawfully implemented the cap and violated constitutional prohibitions on applying new rules retroactively. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the case is ongoing.

    Next came the Energy Department. In April, the agency announced the same 15% cap on indirect research costs, alleging the plan would save taxpayers $405 million annually. Again, colleges sued, and a federal judge blocked the plan — albeit temporarily — while the lawsuit moves forward.

    The ACE, AAU and APLU are plaintiffs in both cases.

    Now NSF has introduced its own cap, to the chagrin of colleges and higher ed experts. When announcing the 15% cap, the agency argued the move would streamline and add transparency to the funding process and “ensure that more resources are directed toward direct scientific and engineering research activities.”

    But the new lawsuit argues that NSF’s policy echoes the other agencies’ attempts, to deleterious effect.

    “NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons, and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies,” it said. 

    Like the lawsuits against NIH and Energy Department’s policies, the plaintiffs allege that the NSF’s cap oversteps the agency’s authority.

    “It beggars belief to suggest that Congress — without saying a word — impliedly authorized NSF to enact a sweeping, one-size-fits-all command that will upend research at America’s universities,” it said.

    In fiscal 2024, Congress gave NSF $7.2 billion to fund research and related activities. In turn, the agency funded projects at 1,850 colleges — more than 1 in 4 of the higher education institutions in the U.S. eligible to receive federal dollars.

    That year, NSF awarded Arizona State University, one of the plaintiffs, 172 awards worth a total of $197.5 million in anticipated and obligated funding, according to court documents. Prior to the NSF’s new policy, the institution negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs in fiscal 2026. 

    The University of Illinois, another plaintiff, received just over $129 million in NSF funding in fiscal 2024 — making the agency its biggest funder — and negotiated an indirect research funding rate of 58.6%.

    The university said in court documents that it has received the most NSF funding of all U.S. colleges for six years in a row, and it is poised to lose more than $23 million a year if the agency’s new cap is allowed to continue.

    The college plaintiffs are:

    • Arizona State University.
    • Brown University, in Rhode Island.
    • California Institute of Technology.
    • The University of California.
    • Carnegie Mellon University, in Pennsylvania.
    • The University of Chicago.
    • Cornell University.
    • The University of Illinois.
    • Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    • The University of Michigan.
    • The University of Minnesota.
    • The University of Pennsylvania.
    • Princeton University, in New Jersey.

    The lawsuit also cited an attempt by the first Trump administration to cap rates for indirect research at a federal agency. In 2017, the White House proposed cutting the cap to 10% for all NIH grants. Congress – then under Republican control as it is now — “identified serious problems immediately” and took “swift and bipartisan” action against the proposal, the lawsuit said.  

    Source link

  • Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

    Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

    A coalition of universities and trade groups is suing the National Science Foundation over the independent federal agency’s plan to cap higher education institutions’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates at 15 percent. 

    In the lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the same day the NSF’s new policy went into effect, the coalition argued that a cut would risk the country’s standing “as a world leader in scientific discovery” and “the amount and scope of future research by universities will decline precipitously.”

    It warned that “vital scientific work will come to a halt, training will be stifled, and the pace of scientific discoveries will slow” and that “progress on national security objectives, such as maintaining strategic advantages in areas like AI and quantum computing, will falter.”

    Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and 13 universities, including Arizona State University, the University of Chicago and Princeton University.

    They attest that the NSF violated numerous aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing Congress to unilaterally institute an “arbitrary and capricious” 15 percent rate cap and failing to explain why it’s only imposing the policy on universities.

    The NSF awarded $6.7 billion to some 621 universities in 2023.

    Indirect costs fund research expenses that support multiple grant-funded projects, including computer systems to analyze enormous volumes of data, building maintenance and waste-management systems. In 1965 Congress enacted regulations that allow each university to negotiate a bespoke reimbursement rate with the government that reflects institutional differences in geographic inflation, research types and other variable costs.

    Typical negotiated NSF indirect cost rates for universities range between 50 and 65 percent, according to the lawsuit.

    And while the Trump administration has claimed that indirect cost reimbursements enable wasteful spending by universities, the plaintiffs note that an existing cap on administrative costs means that universities already contribute their own funds to cover indirect costs, “thereby subsidizing the work funded by grants and cooperative agreements.” In the 2023 fiscal year, universities paid $6.8 billion in unrecovered indirect costs, the lawsuit read.

    The NSF is the third federal agency that has moved to cap indirect research costs since President Donald Trump took office in January; federal judges have already blocked similar plans from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.

    “NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons,” the lawsuit read, “and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies.”

    Source link

  • A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    A Michigan research professor explains how NIH funding works − and what it means to suddenly lose a grant – Campus Review

    In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public source database compiled by the scientific community, and it is proposing additional cuts that would reduce the $47 billion budget of the US National Institutes of Health, also known as the NIH, by nearly half.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock, readers are likely to be very aware of the current financial challenges facing universities across the UK.

    The situation is no different in Scotland where several Scottish universities have reported an adjusted operating deficit position for academic year 2023–24 – although it’s important to note that this position can also reflect the stage of the institution’s investment cycle or actions being taken to restructure as well as reflecting the current year financial performance of an institution.

    These are difficult times for the sector. But a silver lining, if there were one to be found, could be that challenging times present an opportunity to do things differently. Approaches that would have previously been deemed too complicated to undertake can find themselves on the table because they have the potential to drive essential efficiencies and promote sustainability.

    Looming large

    With 18 universities receiving Scottish Funding Council (SFC) core funding for research – “Scottish QR”, the Research Excellence Grant (REG) – the Scottish system is of the size and scale where SFC can regularly have discussions with every vice principal for research. These discussions help us better understand the state of play and the pressures and challenges being faced.

    When we most recently spoke with vice principals, as you’d expect, financial sustainability loomed large. Challenges are having a real impact on how many institutions are considering their R&I activity.

    One of the things we heard is that an increasing number of institutions are exploring sharing back-office services between institutions to create efficiencies.

    This makes sense. Scotland is a small country with a largesse of universities, all of which undertake world-leading research as determined by the REF. We’re also a country of concentrated geography with many of our institutions focused in the same places.

    While these are moves in the right direction for sustainability, there are benefits from things happening sooner rather than later, given that there’s no quick fix for university finances. Here SFC has a role to play, by helping catalyse activity.

    This is the thinking behind the funding opportunity we launched this week – a new R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund.

    Getting together

    The fund will allow Scottish universities to apply for funding to develop sustainable models and steps to implement sharing services, including but not limited to sharing tech transfer offices (TTOs) and research offices. It will allow:

    • The consolidation of existing distinct functions by replacing them with a single shared function.
    • Institutions with smaller research portfolios to work with larger institutions to gain access to expertise and capability that they don’t currently have.
    • The creation of shared capacity between groups of institutions where limited functions currently exist but new shared capability would drive efficiencies.

    It will kick-start longer-term collaboration by supporting the initial costs of change, enabling institutions to navigate the difficult proof of concept stage and de-risk the exploration of new approaches in a financially constrained environment.

    Our intention is to precipitate and fund a different way of working, investing in change which will enable the change to carry on.

    A total of £3m will be available over academic years 2025–26 and 2026–27 with grants of between £250,000 and £750,000 on offer through open competition. Grants will help to promote system sustainability by supporting increased inter-institutional operational collaboration.

    As well as promoting financial viability, where grants are focused on the sharing of technology transfer office (TTO) services, the fund will increase Scotland’s research commercialisation pipeline by expanding access to key facilities across institutions.

    This provides an opportunity to further Scottish government innovation ambitions as outlined in the National Innovation Strategy. University research commercialisation is central to the strategy and ensuring that world-leading research from across all of Scotland’s universities can be successfully commercialised requires access to critical expertise. The UK government’s spin-out review, published in November 2023, also highlights the value of shared technology transfer expertise across universities.

    And it’s not necessarily just about sharing research offices and TTOs – we’re interested in other proposals for sharing R&I services which meet our criteria.

    Small but mighty

    We’re under no illusions that the R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund will solve or even make a significant dent in the financial challenges currently being faced by universities. No, doing that will require multi-factored activity across many stakeholders.

    But we hope that this funding will go some way to promoting sustainability and making Scotland’s small but mighty research system function in a way that reflects the opportunities of scale and collaboration we have on our doorstep.

    Source link

  • Trump Admin Cuts Off New Research Funding to Harvard

    Trump Admin Cuts Off New Research Funding to Harvard

    Harvard has about $9 billion in grants and contracts from the federal government.

    Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

    Harvard University won’t be getting any new grants, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a blistering letter to the institution that was posted on the social media platform known as X.

    “Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni,” McMahon wrote. “You have an approximately $53 billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise.”

    McMahon didn’t specify what grants she was referring to in the letter, sent Monday evening, but other media outlets reported that the Trump administration was cutting Harvard off from new research grants.

    The move escalates the Trump administration’s war with Harvard University. After the university rejected sweeping demands, the administration froze $2.26 billion of Harvard’s estimated $9 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard then sued. Trump also has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its ability to enroll international students.

    The letter didn’t cite any legal authority for cutting off new funds to Harvard, so it’s unclear if McMahon can follow through on her threat.

    McMahon accused Harvard of failing to follow federal law and abide “by any semblance of academic rigor.” She also raised questions about why the university was offering an introductory math course to address pandemic learning loss and criticized the decision to scrap standardized testing requirements.

    “Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this ‘acclaimed university’? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest level of mathematics, are being rejected?” McMahon wrote.

    Over all, she wrote that Harvard had “made a mockery of the country’s higher education system,” referencing in part the plagiarism allegations against the university’s former president. To McMahon, it all shows “evidence of Harvard’s disastrous management” and an “urgent need for massive reform.”

    Trump administration officials told Politico that to restore the flow of federal funds, Harvard “would have to enter into a negotiation with the government to satisfy the government that it’s in compliance with all federal laws.” (The government has yet to release any finding or evidence showing that Harvard isn’t complying with federal laws, though officials have made plenty of accusations.)

    McMahon wrote that the administration stands by its demands for “common sense” reforms such as merit-based admissions and hiring decisions and an “end to unlawful programs that promote crude identity stereotypes.” Those changes “will advance the best interests of Harvard University,” she added.

    Source link

  • Trump Proposes Deep Cuts to Education and Research

    Trump Proposes Deep Cuts to Education and Research

    President Donald Trump wants to end funding for TRIO, Federal Work-Study and other grant programs that support students on campus as part of a broader plan to cut $163 billion in nondefense programs.

    The funding cuts were outlined in a budget proposal released Friday. The document, considered a “skinny budget,” is essentially a wish list for the fiscal year 2026 budget for Congress to consider. The proposal kicks off what will likely be a yearlong effort to adopt a budget for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Trump is unlikely to get all of his plan through Congress, though Republicans have seemed especially willing this year to support his agenda.

    If enacted, the plan would codify Trump’s efforts over the last three months to cut spending and reduce the size of the federal government—moves that some have argued were illegal. (Congress technically has final say over the budget, but Trump and his officials have raised questions about the legality of laws that require the president to spend federal funds as directed by the legislative branch.)

    The proposed budget plan slashes nearly $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health, $12 billion from the Education Department, and nearly $5 billion from the National Science Foundation. The skinny budget also eliminates funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, AmeriCorps, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump has already made deep cuts at those agencies and put most—if not all—of their employees on leave.

    A fuller budget with more specifics is expected later this month.

    Democrats were quick to blast Trump’s plan, saying it would set the country “back decades by decimating investments to help families afford the basics.” But Republicans countered that the proposal would rein in “Washington’s runaway spending” and right-size “the bloated federal bureaucracy.”

    For higher ed groups and advocates, the proposed cuts could further jeopardize the country’s standing as a leader in global innovation and put college out of reach for some students.

    “Rather than ushering in a new Golden Age, the administration is proposing cuts to higher education and scientific research of an astonishing magnitude that would decimate U.S. innovation, productivity, and national security,” said Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, in a statement. “We call on Congress to reject these deeply misguided proposed cuts and instead invest in the nation’s future through education and pathbreaking research.”

    Zeroing Out ED Programs

    At the Education Department, the Trump administration is proposing to end a number of programs and reduce funding to others.

    The president wants to eliminate the department altogether; Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement that the proposal reflects “an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.”

    McMahon laid off nearly half of the agency’s staff in March, so the budget also addresses those cuts.

    To compensate for the cuts to programs that directly support students or institutions, the administration argued colleges, states and local communities should on take that responsibility. Other justifications for the cuts reflect the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and higher ed.

    For instance, officials from the Office of Management and Budget wrote that the SEOG program “contributes to rising college costs that [institutes of higher education] have used to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success.” (The SEOG program provides $100 to $4,000 to students “with exceptional financial need,” according to the department.)

    On TRIO and GEAR UP, which help low-income students get to college, the administration said those programs were a “relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access … Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means.”

    Additionally, the administration wants to cut the Office for Civil Rights’ budget by $49 million, or 35 percent. The budget document says this cut will refocus OCR “away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases.” In recent years, the Biden administration pleaded with Congress to boost OCR’s funding in order to address an increasing number of complaints. The office received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and the Biden administration projected that number to grow to nearly 24,000 in 2025.

    But the OMB document claims that OCR will clear its “massive backlog” this year. “This rightsizing is consistent with the reduction across the Department and an overall smaller Federal role in K-12 and postsecondary education,” officials wrote.

    The administration also proposed cutting the Education Department’s overall budget for program administration by 30 percent. The $127 million cut reflects the staffing cuts and other efforts to wind down the department’s operations.

    “President Trump’s proposed budget puts students and parents above the bureaucracy,” McMahon said. “The federal government has invested trillions of taxpayer dollars into an education system that is not driving improved student outcomes—we must change course and reorient taxpayer dollars toward proven programs that generate results for American students.”

    Science and Research Cuts

    Agencies that fund research at colleges and universities are also facing deep cuts. The $4.9 billion proposed cut at the National Science Foundation is about half of what the agency received in fiscal year 2024—the last year Congress adopted a full budget.

    The cuts will end NSF programs aimed at broadening participation in the STEM fields, which totaled just over $1 billion, as well as $3.45 billion in general research and education.

    “The budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science,” the officials wrote in budget documents. “NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies.”

    As examples of “research with dubious public value,” officials specifically highlighted a $13.8 million NSF grant at Columbia University to “advance livable, safe, and inclusive communities” and a $15.2 million grant to the University of Delaware focused on achieving “sustainable equity, economic prosperity, and coastal resilience in the context of climate change.” The administration is maintaining the funding for research into artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences.

    The budget plan also aims to make significant reforms at the National Institutes of Health while slashing the agency’s budget by $17.9 billion. NIH received $47 billion in fiscal 2024.

    The plan would consolidate NIH programs into five areas: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health.

    The National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research would all be cut. The administration is planning to maintain $27 billion for NIH research.

    “The administration is committed to restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH,” officials wrote. “NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

    Source link

  • How does UK research support Government’s five missions, and should universities align with them?

    How does UK research support Government’s five missions, and should universities align with them?

    Earlier this year, HEPI, with support from global information analytics company Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner on how UK research and innovation should support the government’s five missions.

    This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from that discussion.

    The Labour government has made clear that five missions drive its decisions on policy. These are: kickstarting economic growth, an NHS fit for the future, safer streets, breaking down barriers to opportunity and making Britain a clean energy superpower. In October 2024, it announced a £25 million R&D Missions Programme to address specific challenges involved in meeting these missions and to help turn scientific advances into real-world benefits.

    How well do the UK’s research strengths already map to the missions, and how much capacity exists to do more? For global information analytics company Elsevier, this was worth interrogating. It set to work, drawing on its Scopus database of research publications and the Overton index of policy documents, clustering papers into topics and using artificial intelligence and large language models to link them to the missions.

    This allowed it to track what share of UK research carried out between 2019 and 2023 relates to the missions the government has identified and how this compares to other policy areas, including how it has varied over time. Elsevier has also been able to make comparisons with the research strengths of other countries in these areas. The process involved developing a methodology that matched huge datasets to the narrative national goals set out in Labour’s manifesto.

    The role of R&D in supporting government priorities was the subject of a roundtable dinner, informed by this analysis, hosted by HEPI in February and attended by policymakers and senior leaders from across the higher education sector. The discussion was held under the Chatham House rule, by which speakers express views on the understanding that they will be unattributed.

    Useful information

    Sarah Main, vice-president, academic and government relations at Elsevier, told participants that the aim of the analysis was to be useful, for the research community and policymakers, in making the case for continued investment in R&D in the lead up to a tight spending review.

    The work shows that a significant share of the UK’s published research relates to government priorities: for example, 11% relates to growth and around 35% to its aims around health. By making comparisons with research outputs in other countries, it also identifies possible future partnerships and collaborations.

    But she pointed out that research output is only one way in which research and innovation supports the government’s missions; people, skills and infrastructure also play a part. Further work, she said, could help identify the key people, institutions and areas in which the UK has relevant strengths, as well as suggest emerging questions and themes.

    Many of those attending the roundtable felt that it was useful to see how far universities are producing research that supports government priorities and to be able to demonstrate this to policymakers – and the Treasury. They particularly welcomed the chance to identify where relevant research was taking place internationally.

    It was suggested that the tool would be useful in maintaining a dialogue between research and government priorities, identifying quickly the kind of work taking place and who was doing it and helping to build communities around research areas.

    Potential problems

    But there were reservations about aligning research too closely with specific policy areas. The fear was that what could be lost in the process was curiosity-driven work, which was a feature of the UK system and which could lead to valuable nuggets of knowledge that could go on to solve world problems. Another concern was that innovation strengths did not always translate into strengths around delivery.

    Some questioned how much could be achieved without investment in supporting a healthy research environment for the long term. The recent decision to cut overseas aid in favour of increasing the defence budget was an example of how quickly government policies could change.

    Research priorities could change too. One participant in the roundtable said it would be important not to ignore findings from further back in the past or for policymakers to forget the broader research agenda in favour of the latest exciting paper.

    ‘I look at the missions and I think the reason these are possible is because of R&D that was being done 25 years ago,’ said one delegate, who was worried that concentrating on where the government is looking now could be at the expense of developing capability in the missions of future generations and working out what these would be – learning to live with robots perhaps or addressing chronic loneliness. 

    Focusing exclusively on missions also ignores how ready the research community is for a shock like Covid or another existential challenge. And what about some of the nuances of where the UK’s research strengths are located, such as working with other disciplines, and how research feeds into growth in more general ways than through specific papers? Relevant skills training and universities’ educational role are also important.

    Talking politics

    Then, how much weight should be given to a government’s stated priorities? If last July’s election had elected a party with the mission to make Britain great again, would the research community want to find out how far the work it was doing supported it?

    Also, how far are the government’s missions likely to persist, with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin doing everything they can to undermine them, as one delegate argued? Far more likely to determine whether the government gets re-elected will be progress on growth and healthcare, which have been consistent public concerns for decades. Even if, as Elsevier has found, 35% of research in the UK relates to health, ministers may respond by asking why, in that case, people are no healthier.

    Some felt that universities needed to be more political and to understand better the channels by which research becomes policy and how to negotiate them. This could involve researchers considering the attitudes of the public as well as those of politicians.

    The government may also need to give universities a clearer idea of what good looks like when it comes to universities, such as whether the amount of research related to healthcare that Elsevier has identified is good enough, where the government wants universities to be focusing and what resources will be available to them. 

    But spending too much time dabbling in politics could be dangerous. Instead, suggested one participant, universities should be engaging “at scale” with all sectors and everyone involved in the political process, giving advice to whoever needs it.

    The public purse

    Universities should also avoid dwelling on their own self-interest. One delegate noted that finding out how far they contribute to the government’s missions would be of little use if the sector collapses. But another suggested that focusing too closely on missions could encourage universities merely to highlight relevant work they are already doing and then make another request for money.

    It is certainly the case that there will be plenty of other calls on the public purse over the next few months and years. In this context, it could be useful for the sector to stress the shorter-term wins relevant to the missions that management science or operational research can offer, as well as long-term gains such as new drugs. One delegate suggested that it would be useful to have clearer identification of where research has directly led to spin-out companies and economic growth.

    The roundtable concluded that universities are clearly relevant to addressing the government’s missions, that they are already influencing policy and that the methodology under discussion could help inform strategy. But it recognised that outcomes – such as reduced crime and an efficient NHS – are what matter most to the public and these therefore should be the priority.

    Source link

  • Education research takes another hit in latest DOGE attack

    Education research takes another hit in latest DOGE attack

    Education research has a big target on its back.

    Of the more than 1,000 National Science Foundation grants killed last month by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, some 40 percent were inside its education division. These grants to further STEM education research accounted for a little more than half of the $616 million NSF committed for projects canceled by DOGE, according to Dan Garisto, a freelance journalist reporting for Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal that also covers science news.

    The STEM education division gives grants to researchers at universities and other organizations who study how to improve the teaching of math and science, with the goal of expanding the number of future scientists who will fuel the U.S. economy. Many of the studies are focused on boosting the participation of women or Black and Hispanic students. The division had a roughly $1.2 billion budget out of NSF’s total annual budget of $9 billion. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Neither the NSF nor the Trump administration has provided a list of the canceled grants. Garisto told me that he obtained a list from an informal group of NSF employees who cobbled it together themselves. That list was subsequently posted on Grant Watch, a new project to track the Trump administration’s termination of grants at scientific research agencies. Garisto has been working with outside researchers at Grant Watch and elsewhere to document the research dollars that are affected and analyze the list for patterns. 

    “For NSF, we see that the STEM education directorate has been absolutely pummeled,” Noam Ross, a computational disease ecologist and one of the Grant Watch researchers, posted on Bluesky. 

    Terminated grants fall heavily upon STEM Education 

    Graphic by Dan Garisto, a freelance journalist working for Nature

    The steep cuts to NSF education research follow massive blows in February and March at the Department of Education, where almost 90 research and data collection projects were canceled along with the elimination of Regional Education Laboratories and the firing of almost 90 percent of the employees in the research and data division, known as the Institute of Education Sciences.

    Many, but not all, of the canceled research projects at NSF were also in a database of 3,400 research grants compiled by Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican. Cruz characterized them as “questionable projects that promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.”  

    Ross at Grant Watch analyzed the titles and abstracts or summaries of the terminated projects and discovered that “Black” was the most frequent word among them. Other common words were “climate,” “student,” “network,” “justice,” “identity,” “teacher,” and “undergraduate.”

    Frequent words in the titles and summaries of terminated NSF research projects

    Word cloud of the most frequent terms from the titles and abstracts of terminated grants, with word size proportional to frequency. Purple is the most frequent, followed by orange and green. Source: Noam Ross, Grant Watch

    At least two of the terminated research studies focused on improving artificial intelligence education, which President Donald Trump promised to promote in an April 23 executive order,“Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth.” 

    “There is something especially offensive about this EO from April 23 about the need for AI education… Given the termination of my grant on exactly this topic on April 26,” said Danaé Metaxa in a post on Bluesky that has since been deleted. Metaxa, an assistant professor of computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania, was developing a curriculum on how to teach AI digital literacy skills by having students build and audit generative AI models. 

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    Another canceled grant involved college students creating educational content about AI for social media to see if that content would improve AI literacy and the ability to detect misinformation. The lead researcher, Casey Fiesler, an associate professor of information science at the University of Colorado Boulder, was almost midway through her two-year grant of less than $270,000. “There is not a DEI aspect of this work,” said Fiesler. “My best guess is that the reason it was flagged was the word ‘misinformation.’”

    Confusion surrounded the cuts. Bob Russell, a former NSF project officer who retired in 2024, said some NSF project officers were initially unaware that the grants they oversee had been canceled. Instead, university officials who oversee research were told, and those officials notified researchers at their institutions. Researchers then contacted their project officers. One researcher told me that the termination notice states that researchers may not appeal the decision, an administrative process that is ordinarily available to researchers who feel that NSF has made an unfair or incorrect decision. 

    Related: DOGE’s death blow to education studies

    Some of the affected researchers were attending the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Denver on April 26 when more than 600 grants were cut. Some scholars found out by text that their studies had been terminated. Normally festive evening receptions were grim. “It was like a wake,” said one researcher. 

    The Trump administration wants to slash NSF’s budget and headcount in half, according to Russell. Many researchers expect more cuts ahead.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about NSF education research cuts was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins Taps Endowment Earnings for Research Funding

    Johns Hopkins Taps Endowment Earnings for Research Funding

    Johns Hopkins University is turning to earnings on its $13.2 billion endowment to preserve research and protect researchers, trainees and staff amid drastic cuts to federal funding, The Baltimore Banner reported Monday.

    Since President Donald Trump started his second term in January, federal agencies have terminated or stalled billions in research grants to colleges and universities in a move scientists and higher education advocates warn will decimate university budgets, slow scientific innovation and hurt local economies. Johns Hopkins estimates that it has so far lost 100 federal grants, while others remain under review by the Trump administration to ensure they align with the federal goal of rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion, among other things. As a result, the university said it’s approaching $1 billion in federal funding losses so far this year.

    While Trump and his allies have suggested universities can use their endowments to fund research, officials at Johns Hopkins—which received more funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2024 than any other university—said Monday that’s not so easy.

    “It’s a common misconception that universities can simply ‘use the endowment’ in moments like this,” university officials said in a statement. “The reality is that most of our endowment is made up of legally restricted funds designated by donors for specific purposes. The principal of the endowment must legally be preserved in perpetuity—to support Johns Hopkins’ mission now and for future generations—and cannot be drawn down like a reserve fund.

    “That said, we are using flexible resources—some of which are tied to endowment earnings—to help sustain critical research in this moment of uncertainty.”

    Johns Hopkins hasn’t disclosed how much total earnings it plans to take from its endowment to help faculty and students continue their research, according to a news release.

    But in the plan released Monday, it said individuals will receive up to $100,000 for delayed grants or $150,000 for terminated grants during a 12-month period. The university will also offer a year of support to Ph.D. students completing their dissertations and postdoctoral fellows who had been expecting support from federal grants that were terminated, as well as expand a program that offers editorial support for grant proposals and journal articles and another that enables undergraduates to work with faculty mentors on original research or projects.

    Source link