After the National Science Foundation (NSF) paused the approval and distribution of grants earlier this year, Boston College researchers voiced concerns about the potential long-term effects of disruptions in federal funding.
The NSF, which funds a range of scientific research across the U.S., halted its grant-reviewing process in late January to ensure compliance with an executive order from President Donald Trump. The agency announced it would begin reviewing all funding activities, disrupting review panels and grant allocations.
Although the processes resumed earlier this month, the incident cast doubt on the future stability of research funding, according to Babak Momeni, an associate professor of biology and an NSF-funded researcher.
“I think the general reaction is some level of disappointment in itself,” Momeni said. “Their main job is to support basic science and train future scientists and engineers, and not having that support, I think for us, it has been a little bit disheartening.”
While his lab has not yet been affected by the NSF freeze, Momeni said the uncertainty has been unsettling for both researchers and students.
“For our trainees, I think they now will hesitate a little bit more considering going into careers that would overlap with NSF’s mission,” Momeni said.
Since 2020, external funding, including contributions from federal government agencies, has increased from $57 million to $73 million and was projected to reach $83 million in 2024, according to the Office of the Provost.
Possible future limits on NSF funding could potentially hinder this momentum, said Kenneth Burch, chair of the physics department and an NSF-funded researcher.
“BC has been doing a really impressive job at increasing its research portfolio,” Burch said. “I’m proud to say that my department has played a substantial role in that. Whether that can continue, I don’t know.”
Although the NSF funding freeze was lifted, researchers discussed new guidelines implemented by the NSF in response to Trump’s executive order on the language used in grant proposals, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion.
According to Sarah McMenamin, an associate professor of biology who previously received funding from the NSF, the new reviews have raised concerns about the future of efforts to promote diversity in scientific research.
“There are a lot of questions for the future and what this means down the line, and especially for those of us who have educational missions and outreach missions and missions that promote inclusivity,” McMenamin said.”
Not only does this impact current grants, but researchers will also have to factor it in when applying for new ones, Burch said.
“At the time I heard about all this, I was in the middle of writing a grant for NSF,” Burch said. “We were considering diversifying, how we would help to diversify future engineers, and so on. We immediately rewrote that part of the grant before we submitted it because we didn’t think it would fly anymore.”
Beyond the NSF, researchers are closely watching developments at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Following the Trump administration’s call to cut medical research funding by 4 billion, The NIH issued a notice about capping indirect research costs– funds for supporting research infrastructure—the research environment rather than the project–that universities receive from NIH grants at 15 percent, as opposed to the previously negotiated rates that varied by institution.
A Massachusetts U.S. District Judge, Angel Kelley, issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 10, stalling the research cuts from taking effect in 22 states that sued the Trump administration for the decision.
Momeni believes the potential impact of this cut would be substantial, especially for research conducted at universities.
As a potential solution, researchers have begun to explore alternative funding sources, such as private foundations and industry partnerships. Momeni pointed out that this would be challenging because these sources aren’t geared toward fundamental scientific research.
“They might be more interested in investing in cancer or investing in a disease that maybe some family member is affected by,” Momeni said. “There’s a lot more basic science that has to go into work to get to the point that something translational and relevant to patients comes out of it, and usually the governments pick up that part.”
While keeping up with developments from funding agencies, Burch said researchers are struggling to understand what the future holds.
“There was always a lot of uncertainty but at least you kind of knew how the system worked,” Burch said. “And now, nobody has a clue.”
