Perspective: I'm a Harvard professor. Here's why publicly funded scientific research matters

Yahoo

a day ago

Drastic budget cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies have put federally funded university research into the spotlight. As a professor at Harvard, I've recently been asked why the U.S. government funds university research and why universities with endowments, like Harvard, don't fund their own research through their endowments.
After two decades of being a professor and part-time entrepreneur, I understand why people ask this question, and it's a fair one. Today, more than ever, we as a nation need to work toward open respectful dialogue that cross-cuts political ideologies.
To that end, I'm always happy to share my perspective, which is that federally funded research is a public good with proven benefits. While Harvard is in the spotlight right now, such research goes on across the country, from Brigham Young University to the University of Minnesota to Kent State. You have personally benefited from it, in fact, if you take one of today's popular weight-loss drugs, or wear a seat belt in your car.
First, some background on how this collaboration began:
During World War II, the federal government began providing funding for university scientists to do research related to the war effort. The benefits soon became clear. Universities were more nimble and cost-effective than federal labs that would need thousands of staff scientists and dedicated facilities. And universities already employed scientists across a diversity of fields who could collaborate on projects as needed. As such, to maintain U.S. intellectual leadership, the government established many of the funding agencies that exist today. The process is designed for efficiency, in multiple ways.
Scientists compete for federal research dollars. The government issues requests for proposals on topics that reflect federal and societal priorities, and scientists submit proposals to compete for these grants. It often takes scientists months to develop a robust research plan and a federally compliant budget, and universities largely bear the associated costs.
The proposals are critically reviewed by program officers and by a panel of peers. 'Peers' in this context are colleagues who are knowledgeable in the field and can judge the quality of the proposals. Peers with conflicts of interest are disqualified. The competition for funds, which are usually insufficient to award all meritorious proposals, is so fierce that, success rates at many agencies range from 8% to 30%.
The amount of financial support awarded also varies by field. Biomedical research, engineering, computer science and chemistry programs typically have access to higher levels of funding to support the higher costs of this work. In contrast, support for scientific fields such as zoology and anthropology is far more modest.
Federal research grants, by design, include direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are funds to be spent solely on the approved specific activities. These can include research supplies, graduate student stipends and economy-class travel to field sites and professional conferences.
Indirect costs are meant to offset the cost of building maintenance, safety officers, and administrators who ensure that scholars are spending federal tax dollars appropriately.
Indirect costs, while controversial, can save taxpayer dollars. For example, indirect-cost funding can be used to acquire shared equipment such as DNA sequencers that can be used by the entire research community, alleviating the need for each scientist to purchase their own equipment.
It's important to know that indirect costs are not blank checks to universities. They are not slush funds; they cannot be used to build fancy gymnasiums or host lavish parties. They are, however, a means of incentivizing universities to maintain state-of-the-art facilities that serve the public good.
Indirect cost rates are set every few years by the government, which bases the rate on a variety of factors such as the scope of the research at each institution. A liberal arts college might have a 10% rate, meaning the award will include the direct costs plus an additional 10% to offset the administrative and infrastructure needs. A world-leading research university might be given 65% to maintain or operate state-of-the-art facilities such as MRIs or particle accelerators.
All institutions receiving such funds must adhere to a strict set of accounting requirements or risk severe penalties. Today, increases in material costs and a complex state/federal regulatory landscape put financial and administrative pressure on universities, and the indirect supplement can easily exceed the actual cost of the research, leaving universities to scramble to find additional funds to cover those costs.
Most notably, endowments and gifts cannot replace federal research funds. Endowments are financial gifts meant to provide long-term support for a specific activity, such as paying a professorial salary line or maintaining a building named for the donor. Many endowments support priceless collections, such as the Harvard University library, which holds 400 million manuscripts, 10 million photographs and 1 million maps. These holdings are part of our collective national heritage, and their curation and maintenance come at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
Though it is tempting to think that philanthropy can assume the role of federal funding, that idea is impractical. Very few people make unrestricted donations to a university, and fewer yet make donations large enough to replace federal research support. Put simply, endowments cannot fully support university research in the long term, and even AI won't end the need for such research, which leads to innovation and economic opportunity.
Federally funded research serves the public good; it is done for the people, by the people. It leads to new technologies, from medical treatments to artificial intelligence. For example, research on Gila monster venom (North America's only venomous lizard) contributed to the development of the popular GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Seat belts were invented with help from research at the University of Minnesota; the LCD display, via Kent State; organ transplants, via Harvard; and Parkinson's disease diagnostics via Brigham Young University. And, of course, universities also provide training opportunities for the next generation of scientists and engineers, most of whom enter the private sector.
The U.S. spends less than 3.5% of its GDP on research. Reducing or eliminating federal research will not lead to a significant reduction in our national debt. It will, however, stifle the technological developments that lead to economic growth. It will make us more vulnerable to threats from other nations who will relish the opportunity to gain any technological and economic advantage.
Federally funded research is a great deal for the American public. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. As with all large, complex enterprises, there are factors that hinder progress and waste resources, and these do need to be addressed. But publicly funded research is one of our country's engines of innovation, and emptying the proverbial fuel tank ensures that we will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
Peter Girguis is a professor of marine science and technology at Harvard University. He studies how microbes and animals survive in the deep sea. He founded an ocean fuel cell company and serves as an advisor for several ocean philanthropies.