The Impacts of Cutting Federal Funding For Research

Haeny Yoon:

Welcome to Pop Off, a little spin-off segment from Pop and Play where we take a few minutes to chat about education, play, and pop culture as it is happening in the public conversation.

I'm your host, Haeny Yoon, and I'm joined by Nathan Holbert.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Hey, everyone, I'm Nathan Holbert, and as you hopefully know by now, Pop Off's our short Pop and Play segment where we bring you some quick thoughts and discussion about important and pressing topics that are happening while we record these things. And today, we wanted to pop off about an incredibly important issue near and dear to our hearts. That's federal funding cuts to scientific research.

Now, rather than just hear from me and Haeny as we rant about the decimation of the scientific infrastructure in the US, which we are going to do, we thought we would also bring in one of our dear pals and fellow Pop and Play founders, Lalitha Vasudevan, to help us articulate the widespread impact that these cuts have had.

So welcome, Lalitha.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Hello, friends. Lovely to be here with you.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Thank you for being with us today on a very depressing topic. But maybe before we start, could you two maybe talk about, for the average citizen who is actually interested in how government policies are affecting our day-to-day lives, tell us about what's happening with federal funding and education.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Sure.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

You pointed to me, Nathan.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Tell us all the things, Lalitha.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Well, the federal government made a covenant with universities a while ago, decades ago, to support, promote, and incubate research on a variety of fronts. And in exchange for that kind of intellectual expertise and heft and growth and curiosity and discovery, the federal government offsets those costs in the form of grants.

Now, in other countries around the world, this kind of funding is built into the operating budgets of universities, but in the US, this functions in the form of federal grants. Federal grant-making agencies were constructed to be able to dole out money through a rigorous process of review and evaluation and assessment. And what this has allowed to have happen is something like over 95% of all modern medications were initially incubated and developed using NIH funding.

 

Haeny Yoon:

And what is NIH?

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

That's National Institutes of Health, and this is a funding agency that has funded medical research for decades. So the medicines people use today to treat arthritis, anxiety, diabetes, these were all initially developed through federal funding streams.

So this is why I think we're here. I think we are equally outraged and flummoxed by the casual way that federal funding has been treated in the last few months.

 

Haeny Yoon:

So basically, it was kind of started to bolster innovation, right?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah.

 

Haeny Yoon:

We talk about that all the time, like, "We want to be in an innovative, imaginative, creative society. And basically, it's a way to think about innovation and the funding that is used to back that up.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah, and there's a variety of different agencies that are part of this kind of network. Lalitha mentioned the NIH, the National Institute of Health. There's the National Science Foundation, there's the National Endowment for the Humanities, the-

 

Haeny Yoon:

Which we wrote a grant for, sadly.

 

Nathan Holbert:

We wrote a grant and sadly did not get funded.

 

Haeny Yoon:

No.

 

Nathan Holbert:

But maybe that's worth also mentioning, like how does this thing work? We mentioned it happens through grants. So what is a grant? How does a grant work?

Well, essentially this is something like a competition that researchers, artists, educators across the US will write what's called a proposal for a new project. And the proposal includes lots of details about what they want to do, what the research would be, why the research matters, and then tons and tons of detail about how they would do the project, including a very detailed and extensive budget. The amount of time that I spend working on spreadsheets and budgets is astonishing to me.

And so you have this really detailed, extensive account of a project you want to do and why this project matters. And then you send that to the particular granting agency that is related to the work. They have a very long, very extensive review process where usually it's your peers evaluate that project and whether or not that project makes sense, whether or not it's likely to have an impact. And after that long process, if that committee has decided your project is worth funding, then they award the funding and then you have an opportunity to carry that work out.

And so it's a very small percentage of the projects that people submit to one of these agencies that are actually funded. So it's not like money that the government just gives universities or just gives the scientific community without any details, without any restrictions. It's actually this process of refinement, competition to ensure the highest quality work is what gets funded.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah, I think that's a really important point because I feel like we're led to believe that there is a lot of government waste related to federal funding, and so therefore the federal government is cutting what they consider "waste." But a lot of these grants or a lot of these projects are actually very hard to get funded, and it's really like the ones that can further or bring different kinds of ideas to a discipline or field are the ones that get funded. And so it actually is a pretty rigorous process of trying to get there.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah, and part of that review is even looking at the budget and saying, "Actually, we don't think your budget needs to be that big," or, "that thing that you want to spend money for, I think let's cut that, but the of your project maybe is good and let's continue." So there's already this kind of process for ensuring the money is not wasted in this grant process.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

And I think it's worth saying that those proposals also have to have a lot of significance to what is the societal significance and impact of this grant? How might it benefit people? And so people spend a lot of time thinking about, "Why am I even doing this?" It's not a vanity project, it's in order to benefit some aspect of society.

 

Haeny Yoon:

So when they talk about federal grants being canceled or cut, what does that actually mean?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah. So I mean, grants that are currently in process, and grants usually have a limited amount of time that they run for, maybe it's three years, maybe it's five years, when grants are cut, a letter is sent and that project is expected to cease all activity immediately. And that includes anything from working on a paper, looking at data, collecting data, for NIH, maybe it's interacting with patients that are coming in to receive treatment, all of those things have to stop immediately. So it's a pretty violent end to something that has been in the works for, in many cases, multiple years, right?

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Mm-hmm.

 

Nathan Holbert:

And I think the biggest impact is the human impact on this. So in addition to maybe those patients that are coming in to receive some sort of treatment that might be part of an NIH-funded grant, there's also all these scientists that are working actively on a project, and oftentimes their salary, their funding comes from a project. They may have even moved their entire family to go work at Harvard or Columbia or wherever because they're working with a project team on a federally funded grant. And now suddenly, that funding is gone, their salary is gone, and there they are sort of stuck in this limbo.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

And the other material impact has, because of the, as you said, Nathan, violent end to a grant, you have people's insurance being cut quickly. You have students whose funding is stopped. You have postdocs whose funding is taken away immediately. And these are all people who have been funded by these grants who are contributing to the project, but whose academic training is also dependent on this federal funding, and I think this is where they talk about the brain drain of a nation.

And what you're really also doing when you cut grants off in this way, and certainly grants don't have to be renewed, this is part of the normal grant funding process, but when grants get canceled, it also affects not only the scientists and researchers who are on the grants, but it affects the staff who've been hired. In some medical research, there's people who oversee animal facilities. In social science research, it's people who are managing the grants, who are coordinating all the activities of a grant. These are people who are professionals in universities whose entire salaries are funded this way. And so many of them in the recent months have been laid off because the institution can no longer pay for them.

And we saw this happen not only at Columbia, but when USAID, the funding was cut, Hopkins laid off, I think, upwards of a couple thousand people because they were all funded using this program of funding.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah, I'm glad you raised that. I mean, I think sometimes when people hear like, "Oh, there's a grant for $1 million or $2 million," or whatever it is, there's sort of this assumption that that money is spent on lasers and fancy lab equipment. And don't get me wrong, I can do some really cool stuff with lasers. I'm into that.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Lasers are cool.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Lasers are great. But the vast majority of the funding goes to people. And as you said, this isn't just an impact that's sort of violent end now of staff and of scientists now, but it is a cut for the future of our societies and the future of our scientific research. Students, research scientists, they're not being trained and which means they won't be able to enter into these fields and these professions in the near future.

And so it's a stoppage of work that's happening right now, but it's also putting a major restriction on the kinds of scientific progress, the kinds of scientific innovation and training that we can be doing for the future, so it's a major deal to stop all this.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah. So what I hear you both say is about the human impact of it, that we often think of money as a material thing, but that money also funds people and their imagination and the way that they can carry out different projects and different ideas. And so it's the human factor, I think, that is a big part of it.

What would you say to people though that would say, "Don't universities have enough money? Why is federal funding such an important topic," or, "why are people boohooing about that? Can't universities raise their own funding?"

 

Nathan Holbert:

I mean, listen, that is a thing people say, and you see people talking about the endowments that colleges had, have. I guess I should say, "Had," actually, in this case.

I mean, look, there are some universities with large endowments, and then there's quite a lot of universities that don't have the size of endowments of something like Harvard. So we can say, "Wow, Harvard's billions of dollars in endowments, and why don't they just spend all that money on research instead?" But they're a very unique example of research that happens across the United States, so we shouldn't take their endowment to be an example of every other institution.

But the other thing is that number one, these cuts are massive, and the kinds of things that the federal government is able to fund through the investment of the American people, I mean, this is the American people's money, this is the money you and I pay as part of our taxes to invest in scientific research, the ability to do something interesting with that is dramatically greater at the scale that a government can work at than at the scale of something like an individual university or even a private corporation or something can fund. So the scale is just totally off-the-chart different.

But then I'd also say that, and this gets a little boring, so I'll try to just be quick about it, but part of the funds you receive as part of a grant include not just the money to do the research, but money that's often sent to the institution called indirect that supports the building of infrastructure. So I don't have to build an entirely new building every time we need to do a project that needs to involve people inside of offices and things, or I don't need to buy a new laser every single time I do a project that involves lasers.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Although you want to.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Although, listen, if you want to give me money to buy a new laser, I'll do that. Because infrastructure is supported by that, and that's actually where the institutions really play a major role.

So that infrastructure goes away if the federal funding is no longer supporting that work, and the kinds of projects that individual universities can take on from their own funds, it's just nothing compared to the scale in which the federal government and the public dollars are able to create.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

And I've heard, we're hearing people say, "Well, what about foundations? What about these private entities? Can't they step in?" And you're absolutely right, Nathan, not to the scale that the federal government can. Plus, research is done, scholarly work is done in collaboration with lots of partners. So often, it isn't a sole researcher sitting in a lab doing something somewhere. It's researchers collaborating with other researchers, other institutions, industry, community organizations. And depending on the kind of work that's happening, you need to support that kind of work adequately in order to have research that can be sustained, can have an impact.

And so what we're also seeing is, as you said also, is not only is there an erosion of this kind of work that's happening very quickly, it's going to take a long time, even what's happened in the last couple of months, to rebuild. So a couple months' of cuts, going to take many years to rebuild. And the work that's often happening in these grants is services in the moment to people, clinics, healthcare, literacy clinics, afterschool programs-

 

Nathan Holbert:

Classrooms.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Classroom projects.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Museums.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

All of that. And when the cease and desist letter comes, that activity, like you said, has to cease and desist. In some cases, it's extremely consequential life-and-death, dire consequences. And in other cases, it's a longer tail of consequence. But when you remove library programming that was funded through a federal grant that was meant to support engagement with new kinds of digital texts for kindergartners, what you're doing is you're actually stunting the ability of those kids who were experiencing that project from developing because you've taken away the source of funding. And this idea that everything that was federally funded can suddenly be absorbed just suggests that people have a limited understanding of how our institutions are funded.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah, I think there's a larger philosophy too about how we naturally assume that democracy is about the public good, right?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Right, right.

 

Haeny Yoon:

And that we have governments because governments are supposed to govern, and the way that we govern is by also collectively thinking about ideas, collectively thinking about how to create communities that can support each other, that can support innovation, that could support the betterment of society, right?

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Mm-hmm.

 

Haeny Yoon:

And so I think about how federal funds and federal projects signal that, right?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah.

 

Haeny Yoon:

That these are the things that we're really invested in and these are the projects that we want to collectively work towards, right?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Versus when you pull those things away, then it seems like everybody's out for themselves, right?

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Mm-hmm.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Like, "Who can give me the best project about blank?" And that project is going to be the one that gets funded. And so I think essentially, through this money, it's not just about the money itself. It's what the ideology that it signals to the rest of society.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah, that's so important. And even if you were a deficit hawk and you didn't care about the betterment of society, it'd be insane to cut research funding. It has an incredible return on investment. Studies suggest that it's something like a two-to-one return. So for every dollar invested in scientific research, there's a $2 return on the economic impact of society and of the country.

I just read an article that says that these cuts that they've currently enacted are likely to cost the economy $10 billion annually. That is not good financial sense. It doesn't... In addition to the social impact, it just doesn't make any sense from an economic standpoint.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah. So what would you say the average listener, someone who may not be directly impacted by federal funding, how should we respond as a critical, civic-minded, engaged person?

Lalitha Vasudevan:

I mean, I would actually question that premise to say the average listener is probably impacted by the loss of the federal dollar. If you live in a neighborhood, if you have kids who go to any kind of school, if you visit any kind of local municipal institution, it might be the library, it might be your local park.

 

Haeny Yoon:

If you watch anything on PBS.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

If you watch anything on PBS. And all of those pieces have a piece of their work, their activities that are federally funded. And so I think this point that you made earlier about we are a society that is interconnected, and the alternative to that is I think something else you described, which to me sounded like Shark Tank, right?

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah. Yeah, or a game show.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

We're basically going into a Shark Tankification of-

 

Haeny Yoon:

Ooh, I like that.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

... innovation.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Nevermind. Haeny's down for it.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yep. When do I get on? Just joking. Just kidding.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

And I also think that for folks who have experienced the impact immediate of these cuts, like people who used to work in research centers who have been laid off, tell those stories and understand that the material impact of political choices is the cutting short of people's livelihoods, and that's a direct impact.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Yeah, man, that's so huge. And I think, man, in addition to the usuals, like making phone calls and strongly worded letters, which I think we should all be probably doing all the time these days, but I'm really convinced that, as Lalitha just noted, it is impacting people and we just need to do a better job of telling those stories and communicating what's happening in our universities certainly, but also in our communities and our neighborhoods, and in our centers of education and places such as those.

I mean, tell a friend. Anytime I talk to my folks, I'm like, "Hey, just so you know, here's what's happening so you're aware of it. And when you talk to your friends, let them know that that's what's happening."

That local conversation, I think, is getting lost. Were all so committed to the national story, that we have to call a congressperson, but you can also talk to your neighbor and mention this thing, and you can also see how you can volunteer at your library or your local community center. You can write an op-ed in your local newspaper and talk about how these cuts are going to impact your city and your community.

I think it's important to communicate these things in a more personal, local manner, and each of us can do that without needing to write a letter or call a congressman or even write a strongly worded Bluesky post, though feel free to do that too.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Because you're an expert at that.

 

Nathan Holbert:

And always re-Bluesky mine.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I think what both of you're saying is that these federal funds are not... I think the media likes to portray it as a higher education problem, but it's actually way more than a higher education problem, right?

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Mm-hmm.

 

Haeny Yoon:

That it's a thing that impacts our local communities, our individual families, our collective schools, the policies that get enacted there, so we should all be concerned about this.

 

Nathan Holbert:

That's right. A lot of work to do.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yes. All right. Well, thank you, Lalitha, for joining us today.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

Thanks for having me. This was super fun.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Always fun to have you.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yeah, and thank you.

 

Nathan Holbert:

You can rant with us anytime.

 

Lalitha Vasudevan:

I appreciate that. I like the invitation.

 

Haeny Yoon:

And thank you, Nathan, for your continued rant energy.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Hey, I've always got some. I just love having a microphone to put it into.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Yes, give him attention.

 

Nathan Holbert:

Thanks, everybody.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Thank you, everybody, for joining us on this episode of Pop Off with Lalitha Vasudevan, our special guest. Please remember to take our survey. There's a link in the show notes and at tc.edu/popandplay.

 

Nathan Holbert:

And if you know somebody who you think might like Pop and Play, be sure to share the show with them, share an episode, and we'd love to hear about it if you do.

 

Haeny Yoon:

Bye!

 

Nathan Holbert:

Bye.