
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Researchers laid off and science shelved
Advertisement
The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer.
And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume.
The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force.
Advertisement
The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment.
Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails
Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.'
'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.'
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons.
The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money.
In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead.
Advertisement
Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said.
Knowledge lost in funding freeze
'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia.
At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists.
'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.'
John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts.
In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said.
'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?'
Advertisement
The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary.
Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.'
White House pressure a good thing?
Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.'
But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense.
'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.'
Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector.
Advertisement
'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bitcoin, crypto stocks rally ahead of Trump order opening 401(k)'s to alternative assets
Major cryptocurrencies and crypto-related stock were rallying early Thursday ahead of President Trump's expected signing of an executive order that would allow alternative assets like cryptocurrencies and private equity into the retirement amounts of millions of Americans. Bitcoin (BTC-USD) rose more than 2% near 9:00 a.m. ET trading on Thursday, while ether (ETH-USD) and XRP (XRP-USD) were both up more than 4%. Shares of Coinbase (COIN), the biggest publicly-traded crypto exchange, were up as much as 3%. Robinhood and Strategy shares each rose more than 1.5%. President Trump's executive order, expected to be signed around 12:00 p.m. ET on Thursday according to Reuters, will direct the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to facilitate the use of alternative assets in 401(k)s and other retirement accounts. The order would mark a major shift in retirement investments, opening up the traditionally staid industry to more speculative and, sometimes illiquid, investments. Typically, most 401(k) participants are offered a mix of stock or bond funds or index products in which to invest. Large-scale alternatives assets firms, including BlackRock and KKR, have expressed support for the move, which would open up the multi-trillion dollar retirement account industry to a broader mix of the alternative assets these firms manage. "Private assets like real estate and infrastructure can lift returns and protect investors during market downturns," BlackRock chairman Larry Fink wrote in his latest annual investor letter. "We need to make it clear: Private assets are legal in retirement accounts. They're beneficial. And they're becoming increasingly transparent." The executive order builds on recent crypto momentum in Washington coming off Congress' "Crypto Week" in July, where the two chambers worked to get the CLARITY, GENIUS and Anti-CBDC Acts past their respective votes. The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump on July 18, establishes a regulatory framework for the use of stablecoins like Tether. The CLARITY Act, which seeks to define regulatory oversight of cryptocurrencies, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which seeks to block the Federal Reserve from establishing central bank cryptocurrencies, have both passed in the House of Representatives and are now awaiting votes in the Senate. Jake Conley is a breaking news reporter covering US equities for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on X at @byjakeconley or email him at Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.


Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
FBI will help locate Texas Democrats who fled the state, Cornyn says
The FBI has agreed to cooperate with Texas state law enforcement to locate the 50 Democratic legislators who left the state to avoid a vote on redistricting, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said on Thursday. The big picture: For days, Texas Republicans have been threatening the state legislators with "legal consequences" for breaking the quorum, a sentiment that President Trump also echoed.


The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom, Walz and Pritzker are scapegoating immigrants, cutting their health care
Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have been floated as potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders. But in June, all three governors took a page out of President Trump's playbook by cutting or freezing health care coverage for undocumented immigrants in their states. Their moves aren't just cowardly — they're anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti-public health. And they should be noted, in permanent ink, as moral and economic failures. These governors may be known for their sharp anti-Trump rhetoric, but their recent policy choices echo the very worst aspects of his administration: using immigrants — particularly those without the right to vote — as economic scapegoats. The idea is simple and cynical: Balance the books by cutting benefits to some of the most vulnerable residents, knowing they can't fight back at the ballot box. In Minnesota, as many as 15,000 people will lose their health insurance by the end of this year because Walz approved changes to state coverage for undocumented residents. In California, Newsom will prohibit new enrollment of undocumented immigrants in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, beginning in January. Californian adults ages 19 to 59 who are already enrolled will have to pay a new $30 monthly premium starting in 2027. Dental coverage will be eliminated for undocumented adults and other noncitizens by next July. And to make matters worse, Newsom slashed funding for nonprofit community health centers to serve immigrant families, leaving them nowhere to access health care. Meanwhile, Illinois has already shuttered a program that provided publicly funded health care to more than 30,000 non-U.S. citizens. These cuts are not just cruel — they are economically shortsighted. Public health officials and economists have shown for years that expanding health care access to undocumented immigrants isn't a burden — it's a boon. An ongoing University of Chicago study found that state-run programs extending health care coverage to noncitizens provided significant financial benefits for Illinois hospitals. When people can access primary and preventive care, they avoid costlier emergency room visits. When hospitals are reimbursed, they're less likely to shut down. When immigrants are healthy, they're more likely to keep working, paying taxes and contributing to their communities. So why did these governors do it? The answer is as cynical as it is familiar: political optics and budget math. Rather than face down the powerful interests who block progressive tax reform — such as raising corporate tax rates, enacting inheritance or wealth taxes or levying vacancy taxes on landlords who keep properties empty — these governors went after the lowest-hanging fruit. Instead of leading with moral clarity and economic foresight, they balanced their budgets on the backs of people who already face a daily onslaught of threats: Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, exploitation in the workplace, housing discrimination and hate-fueled violence. These governors acted against the interests, and wishes, of their own constituents. In California, over 120 organizations signed an open letter condemning Newsom's Medi-Cal cuts, calling them even more devastating than the health care changes in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. In Minnesota, residents across the state organized protests denouncing Walz's decision. In Illinois, advocates rallied for 'health care for all,' arguing that these programs served as a lifeline for immigrant families. Let's be clear: There's a world of difference between the tone of these Democrats and that of Trump. But tone is not policy. We cannot let ourselves be distracted by surface-level distinctions while immigrants lose their health care — and potentially their lives — under supposedly progressive leadership. The consequences of stripping coverage aren't theoretical. They are real, measurable and deadly. Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers, workers and caregivers. Many live in mixed-status households. Many pay into public systems from which they receive little or no benefit. When they get sick or injured and can't get care, they lose jobs, homes and security — which ripples out into the broader economy. And when safety net providers like community health centers or rural hospitals lose revenue because fewer people are covered, entire communities suffer. At a moment when Trump's threat to civil rights grows more tangible by the day, we need Democratic governors to do more than be not-Trump at the surface level. We need them to lead. That means collaborative solutions that don't throw whole communities under the bus. It means raising revenue in bold and creative ways. It means centering human rights over political convenience. Newsom, Pritzker and Walz have proven they are willing to sacrifice the health and dignity of immigrants for short-term political gain. But it is not too late to reverse course. These governors can still choose to restore funding for immigrant health programs. They can propose tax reforms that ask more from corporations and the ultra-wealthy. They can govern with the moral clarity their speeches so often invoke. We need leaders who will fight to expand care — not slash it. We need leaders who will defend the undocumented — not discard them. Most of all, we need leaders with the courage to act on the values they claim to hold. The eyes of the nation are watching. We won't forget who showed up, and who sold us out.