Copyright Forbes
One can’t help but realize that the nature of university research – and the partnership itself between America’s research universities and their largest sponsor, the federal government – is changing. From the inside, the changes (whether implemented or threatened, executed or casually mentioned) are daunting, anxiety-inducing, and frankly scary to those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to scientific discovery and exploration. For those outside the world of academic research, whether that’s outside of academic institutions or outside the federal agencies that have historically funded scientific research, what’s happening may appear chaotic, heavy-handed, politically motivated, and perhaps even hurtful to shared societal goals and national priorities. But it is also unlikely to be well understood or even given much thought given other challenges that may be more front-of-mind for many. U.S. higher education is at an inflection point, and no component of what has defined our academic institutions or made them the envy of the world is unaffected. There are threats and changes coming to what colleges and universities teach, and how they teach it; to how they support student expression and student success; to how they recruit faculty and recognize academic freedoms; and how acceptable leaders are identified and appointed. The focus here is on the research enterprise and the range of responses we are likely to see from institutions engaged in scientific research, and for whom such activity may be a defining characteristic – one that has attracted talent and resources, and driven reputation and societal impact – for many decades. Are changes justified? Needed? Overdue? Yes, to all three. I have written about this elsewhere. As have many others both outside and inside higher ed. Is the sky falling? Is this the end of America’s dual supremacy in higher ed and science? Will large numbers of universities be forced to close their doors? No, to all three. But with a few caveats: (1) that universities commit to making needed changes, many of which predated the current administration, (2) that universities and their faculty members become skilled and effective at attracting financial support for research from sources other than (just) the federal government, and (3) that the federal government continues to support research, discovery, and innovation in areas of national strategic interest, the highest national priorities, and that can have the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. MORE FOR YOU Pre-2025: The ‘Baseline’ U.S. research universities, and indeed all the nation’s research organizations and entities, had become accustomed to more and larger grants. More money was being made available, and larger projects awarded, often involving multiple institutions and teams of faculty investigators from different disciplines. Disciplinary research was making room for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, and federal agencies were encouraging the trend, even if it felt awkward and uncomfortable for investigators. There was also the trend of increasing the number of designated research universities, aided by several parallel phenomena: (1) midsize and small, often regional public, universities added research and graduate programs to attract more and different students, be eligible for additional funding, and increase reputation and ranking, (2) federal funding agencies were directing more funding toward faculty members at smaller institutions that had not historically benefited from federal support for research, and (3) the Carnegie classification system sought to be more inclusive/expansive, adding more institutions to the highest level of research classification (called “R1” or research-intensive). Another trend related to “start-up packages,” the funding a university offers beyond the salary and benefits to attract a candidate. This funding is specifically intended to support their research, as “launch” funding for those who are new to the faculty ranks or as incentive for established faculty to change institutions. Science, engineering, and medicine typically have the largest start-up packages (and expectations from faculty) as their equipment, personnel, and facility needs are often the greatest. Over the course of my career (including nearly two decades in senior university leadership with responsibility for faculty hiring), I have seen engineering start-up packages balloon from $100K to well over $1M. In some fields, particularly in biosciences and medicine, the packages can be much larger. And finally, by the time we got to 2025 there was yet another new phenomenon: the transfer portal and NIL. Yup, the sports analogy works almost perfectly here. Faculty, like all other professionals, are far more mobile today than ever before. Universities are buying talent, placing bets on futures, and assembling winning teams. They are offering previously unseen incentives to move, and some are even creating mechanisms (formal and informal) for “revenue sharing.” Next to college athletics, the university faculty transfer portal may be the most active – or is fast on its way to becoming so. 2025: ‘The Hammer’ (a.k.a. ‘The Chaos’) The new year brought a new administration, new priorities, and both a new pace and new style of presidential leadership. It also brought new challenges to our governmental systems (including Congress and the courts), new uses of executive orders, softening or elimination of longstanding programs/priorities that were no longer in favor with (or were antithetical to) the new administration, expanded efforts to reshape electoral politics, new domestic and international market dynamics and financial strategies, and a move by the U.S. (through policy and action, economic and military) away from globalism and toward nationalism. We have witnessed a dramatic shift in the powers of the branches of government toward a far more powerful executive branch, presidential communications (and subsequent debate) being more likely to be held on social media than in the halls of Congress, increased partisanship both in Congress and in communities, and challenges to freedom of speech, expression, and the media. We also have become accustomed to more chaos, greater uncertainty, more threats, and frequent backtracking. Congress presents itself as paralyzed. Universities have been threatened, sued, coerced into settlements, and even invited into compacts. Some of the most well-known elite universities are receiving most of the popular press. But the effects are being felt by all colleges and universities – public and private, large and small, in red states or blue states. The three words that perhaps best characterize what institutions are feeling/experiencing today: anxiety (what’s next?), uncertainty (how should we respond?), and fear (what’s the end game?). The questions every person in the country should be asking when it comes to the current challenges facing the research community: Does this mean quality of life will decline for me and my family? Is our health at greater risk? Will economic growth slow or stall out? Will there be fewer jobs and fewer opportunities? Will the U.S. fall behind China economically and militarily? Will the U.S. be less safe as a nation? (And for many of us, if we lose our scientific supremacy, can we recover it later? By most estimates, what could be lost in less than one year would take decades to restore.) How did this new era impact university research, and so quickly? First, projects were interrupted or cancelled altogether. (In some cases, these decisions then were reversed.) Most of the cancelled projects ran afoul of the new administration’s priorities and had become emblematic of our deeply partisan political climate. What projects were cancelled, and which funding programs were shut down? Most had to do with climate, sustainability, environment, green energy, or DEI. At the same time, prioritieswere emerging which the government would invest significantly in research and development, workforce training, and national security. These include: artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biosciences, nuclear energy, space, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, and domestic supply chain. Second, major changes to the indirect costs paid by the federal government to support the research (e.g., space, supporting personnel, specialized equipment and materials, disposal of hazardous chemicals, etc.) were proposed and suddenly adopted (without consultation or process) by several of the major federal funding agencies. This created tremendous confusion and equally sudden pauses, extensions, and reversals. The system of indirect (or overhead) charges – negotiated regularly and relied upon by every college and university to offset their actual costs of conducting research for the government – has been in place for eight decades. Proposed federal budgets included severe cuts to funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the National Science Foundation (among others). At this time, there appears to be opposition in both the House and the Senate to at least some of these proposed (floated) cuts. It seems likely, however, that there will be (1) reductions in at least some of the federal agency budgets to support research, and (2) there will be a reduction in the federal indirect cost rate. Both of these will significantly impact institutions that compete for and conduct scientific research. The White House invited a select group of universities (later expanded to include more universities, and eventually all colleges and universities) to enter into a compactwith the federal government. Signatories would have preferential access to federal funding. (It was unclear whether this was limited to funding for research or would also include federal student aid, for example.) Those who opted not to sign would risk loss of some or all federal support. None of the invited institutions agreed to the terms of the compact and, for now at least, it appears to be dead. But it lays groundwork for further negotiations between academic institutions and the federal government, and there may be good reasons for such negotiations to take place. (Several of the compact’s goals are very much aligned with those of the institutions.) Many schools have indicated their willingness to enter into discussions with the government in good faith and with an acknowledgement that change is needed. Finally, all the chaos, confusion, anxiety, fear, and understandable levels of caution at universities have resulted in a new type of institutional paralysis. Institutions and their leaders are caught somewhere between “wait and see” and “FOMO.” In the meantime, they are burning through reserves to maintain continuity, creating plans for contingencies never before imagined possible, and twisting themselves into knots trying not to get crosswise (or in the crosshairs of) state legislators, major donors, or the federal government. 2025 and Beyond: Look Left, Look Right Federal funding fragility Regardless of whether funding is restored for active research projects, funding agencies’ budgets are kept whole to support future research, or threats to withhold all federal funding cease to be used as a Damocles’ sword over the heads of universities, faculty investigators and universities themselves realize they can no longer count on federal funding the same way they have for the last few decades. The model, once stable and secure, even if highly competitive, is now fragile and uncertain. A sound strategy going forward is to diversify funding for research across multiple existing sources, and to pursue new sources. Philanthropy, while increasingly significant in most universities’ overall financial strategy and operating budget, traditionally has not been a large source of funding for research. And while it is certainly possible some private donors (individuals, family or private foundations, or even corporate foundations) may be compelled to invest specifically in research, most would agree this is unlikely to make up the very significant losses in federal competitive grant funding that have been realized and may be forthcoming. Still, just as the “grateful patient” (or “grateful family”) model has meant significant donor support for research on cures for cancer and other diseases, there may be new large donors in the future for whom priorities/passions align with university research in climate, sustainability, planetary health, the environment, and global public health, for example. These are some of the same domains of scientific research that are under threat of loss of federal funding. A second source of possible funding is private industry. This, too, has gained in popularity as a means for universities to generate engagement, participation, and support, for both teaching and research activities as well as for recruitment of graduates. Support for scientific research has been less of a priority in most cases, with such support coming in the form of contracts (rather than grants) with specific and time-sensitive deliverables. (This is sometimes referred to as “applied” rather than “basic” research, the latter historically supported by the federal government.) While there may be opportunities for some companies to move into more substantive research partnerships with select universities, like private philanthropy, it is unlikely private industry would be able to make up for the threatened/possible future losses in federal funding for scientific research without universities making significant changes to their mission and operating models. (Some universities already have established loosely connected entities that solicit and conduct applied research for private companies. These are proven models, but unlikely to be feasible for more than a few major research universities with existing industry connections and/or a specific large industry base in their community, e.g., aviation, aerospace, bioscience, ag tech and heavy equipment, microelectronics, automotive, autonomous systems, etc.) The third funding source would be the universities themselves. This may be the most difficult and the most contentious, especially for institutions already facing financial challenges, which most are. This doesn’t mean spending down reserves (generally unadvisable) or spending down endowments (generally not permissible) or going out to the private lending or bond markets (unlikely to have a compelling case, even if the debt capacity exists and the governing board supports taking on the additional debt). Instead, this would require universities to redirect spending from one category to another, disinvesting from one priority to support one or more areas of scientific research deemed to be a higher priority for the institution. Such hard decisions will require strong leadership and strong board support. And while they cannot be made without input from and consultation with faculty shared governance groups, neither can these decisions be drawn out. This is a time where the typical shared governance timelines, however well intended, simply do not align with the urgency of the decision, e.g., ensuring continuity and even future support for the highest priority areas of research (i.e., those deemed critical to the institution) at a time when federal funding for that research is at serious risk. Three Strategies: Passion Projects (private philanthropy) New Paradigms (university-industry partnerships) Institutional Investment (redirected internal funding) How Will Institutions Adjust? Universities will focus on fewer areas. If federal funding for scientific research is significantly reduced or eliminated, most universities will need to make decisions (in short order) about which areas of scientific research to continue to make a priority. Few, other than some of the largest and wealthiest institutions, will be able to continue in the “strength in all areas” model. Even then, they may determine it is far more strategic and sustainable in the long run to focus resources (make commitments and place bets) on a smaller number of areas in which they can be highly competitive for funding and talent. Universities will create “tiered” priorities for research. The highest priority areas will be candidates for institutional investment and resources. This will be the “top” tier. The next tier down will include areas in which faculty are encouraged to pursue external support and will be supported in that pursuit as well as in grant management, but that will not be made priorities for institutional investment, matching funds, faculty hiring, or new space. The next tier down may be applied research funded exclusively by industry. The lowest tier may be unfunded research and scholarship. These are offered here as examples only. But a more specific and purposeful distinction between research domain priorities seems likely. Universities will prioritize private matching funds. Universities may make securing matching funds from private sources (e.g., industry or philanthropy) a requirement to be considered for institutional support for research. Federal research support will no longer be the “best and only” source of support when it comes to prioritizing research areas or institutional investment. Universities will create consortia and enter into shared services agreements. Universities may “co-source” (rather than outsource entirely) many of the functions that support researchers and the conduct of research. In other words, where possible, universities will band together to provide pre- and post-award services to all members of the shared services consortium. This may be particularly attractive for smaller institutions or for groups of closely located institutions. There are likely to be significant economies of scale to be realized, which becomes even more important if the indirect cost recovery rates are reduced. This may also create greater efficiencies for the institutions, especially in managing research partnerships. Some universities will stop doing research. Hard to hear, but likely true. In all but a very small number of cases, research is a loss leader for universities. It may be mission critical, reputation critical, or even critical to the local or regional economy. But it is not revenue enhancing. This is something few outside of higher ed (really, few outside the office of the vice president for research) understand. Universities subsidize all research, some more than others (as some funding agencies pay only reduced or even zero indirect costs). Universities spend about $108 billion annually on research, with about 60% of those funds coming from federal sources. The remaining 40%? Most of that comes from the universities themselves. Those for whom the subsidization is no longer possible, or for whom research is less mission critical than, say, undergraduate teaching or more modestly funded areas of scholarship, will choose – albeit against the wishes of some – to stop supporting the conduct of expensive scientific research. Some faculty will migrate to other institutions. As universities choose to focus on fewer areas of scientific research, close labs or programs, downsize their research enterprise, or eliminate it altogether, some faculty will be motivated to move to a different institution. If their current university chooses not to (or no longer is able to) support their research area, but another university will or has even made it a priority for institutional support, why wouldn’t they try to move? The best will. Some institutions will reset their expectations, return to their previous mission. As I wrote in a previous article, there has been a trend over the last few decades of universities “morphing” toward the ideal of an R1 university. Regional public universities added research and graduate programs (seeking revenue and prestige), smaller private institutions added graduate programs (seeking revenue), R2’s made it a priority to achieve R1 status, Master’s institutions added doctoral programs, and even two-year colleges added baccalaureate programs, often in direct competition with other four-year public institutions in their immediate area. The causes are many and nuanced. The rankings, budgetary woes, enrollment challenges, and even the Carnegie classification system itself all played a part. But in the end, it came down to resources/capital (some combination of financial and reputational) and the misguided notion that EVERY institution should aspire to look like a top-50 research university – even if it required redirecting precious resources away from their historical strengths, distinctive attributes, or core mission. Such growth strategies require ongoing investments. And many institutions are now facing far greater financial challenges. Everything must be reevaluated, and everything is on the table for scaling back or elimination. This includes decisions to add expensive research and graduate programs. The further away an institution strayed from its original mission, and from achieving their lofty goals (financial, reputational, enrollment, national ranking, etc.), the less likely it will make sense for them to continue those investments. That’s a generalization, of course, and I know some will take exception. The point is simply this: some institutions will revert to being smaller, with fewer degree offerings and a smaller research footprint. The homogenizationof higher ed (and higher ed institutions), I contend, has not been good for students, for society, or for higher ed. The (forced) opportunity may now exist to re-stratify higher education and be able to reach, serve, and lift up more students having different backgrounds and different goals. Impacts In the previous section, I write about institutions that perhaps should never have moved into research. The strategy was flawed, the goals elusive, and the redirecting of limited resources too damaging. For them, this is just a “reset.” They never became dependent on research funding (direct and indirect) for operation. But there may be many legitimately research-active institutions that are no longer able to remain active in certain domains of research. For these institutions, the impacts may be significant. These include faculty impacts (recruitment, retention), program impacts (downsizing, merging, closing), student impacts (recruitment), reputational impacts, and infrastructure impacts. Research infrastructure (expensive to acquire, house, operate, and maintain) may present some of the greatest challenges to institutions that are choosing (or who are forced) to downsize research operations. Research universities often possess unique expertise, unique capabilities, and unique facilities. Affected infrastructure (i.e., beyond personnel) include labs, specialized equipment, and space (buildings). Some schools may be able to convert their labs into a “fee-for-service” entity, for example a biosciences core. Some may be able to offload buildings to the market. But here is little aftermarket for specialized research equipment, and there may be no leasing or rental market for high-cost office/lab space, especially in rural communities. How can faculty be supported? Train faculty, support, and incentivize pursuit of new sources of research funding. This includes private philanthropy and private investment. Some faculty are becoming quite skilled at spinning out a company and going to the private market for funding. Others possess the ideas and the skills to be successful in raising philanthropic support. Train faculty, support, and incentivize industry engagement, innovation, technology transfer and commercialization, and entrepreneurship. Value these important contributions (and meaningful outputs from their research) in faculty evaluations for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Revise reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) guidelines to reflect the current research funding landscape and the ways in which faculty are expected to diversify, leverage, and sustain the funding they need to support their research. Reinvention of the University Research Enterprise: What are the Key Elements? Four actions (verbs): Downsizing (focusing, eliminating) programs, labs, research activities. Diversifying sources of support (beyond federal funding, which is likely to be more uncertain and perhaps less available; may include private philanthropy, industry funding, reprioritized/redirected internal funds, and even private investment). Creating robust partnerships, consortia (new models for university-university, university-industry collaborations) Resetting faculty expectations (recruitment; financial support and professional scaffolding; revised reappointment, promotion, and tenure guidelines). Still Wondering: Go Ask Alice The phrase “through the looking glass” (a well-known reference to the sequel of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) refers to entering a surreal, illogical, paradoxical, or reversed reality – a world where the normal rules of logic and behavior don’t apply. It often is used as an analogy to describe a situation or environment that is the reverse of standard reality, or one that is absurd, fantastical, and completely nonsensical. Are we seeing a new reality emerging for our nation’s research universities? As we peer through the looking glass, is what we’re seeing – no matter how illogical or nonsensical – the inevitable reality? Will these predictions come to pass? Or are we going down the rabbit hole (just as Alice fell down the White Rabbit’s hole at the start of the first book), i.e., stumbling into a complex, confusing, and often bizarre situation or sequence of events that pulls one further and further from reality? Curiouser and curiouser.
