Unlocking University Funding: Key Insights Everyone Overlooks

By Nick Hayden

When politicians talk about pulling federal funding from universities like Columbia and Harvard, they often overlook who gets hurt. As a PhD student studying autoimmune diseases, I see firsthand how it impacts researchers like me—not the universities themselves.

Federal research funding isn’t just handed to universities; it’s awarded to scientists through a competitive process. Researchers submit proposals that are reviewed by experts. The focus is on the ideas, not the institutions. This is crucial because the politicization of research funding could threaten scientific advancements and medical breakthroughs in the U.S.

Here’s how federal funding really works. When the government cuts funds, it’s primarily affecting individual researchers, not the institutions. My lab, funded entirely by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is at risk just like many labs across the country. Professors apply directly to the NIH, providing detailed proposals for projects. The competition is fierce; some NIH grants have acceptance rates below 8%. The money goes to researchers and their specific projects, not to the universities themselves.

Yes, universities receive some funds back—around 30% of each grant is allocated for indirect costs to support facilities and training necessary for research. This ensures scientists have the tools they need to succeed.

Last year, I wrote a grant application for an NIH fellowship to fund my research on using artificial intelligence to understand the immune system. It took a month to complete my 78-page proposal. Key sections included:

• A detailed research plan outlining my hypothesis and testing methods.
• A training plan focusing on my development as a scientist through mentorship.
• A personal history detailing my passion for this research.
• Protocols for ethical research and how I planned to ensure rigorous scientific standards.
• Documentation from my mentors highlighting their qualifications.

Once applications are submitted, they are peer-reviewed by volunteers from the scientific community. They assess the significance and feasibility of each proposal. Only a small fraction of applications receive funding. In my case, fewer than 15% were funded last year.

If your proposal isn’t funded, you get feedback on how to improve it. However, if you don’t rank in the top half, you won’t receive any comments. My application faced delays due to administrative freezes, making the submission process even more challenging. I may have to reapply, which is tough when opportunities are limited.

The reality is, if we want a meaningful conversation about federal research funding, we must clarify that this money is not just a handout to universities. It is awarded to dedicated researchers striving to better society through science. There are strict criteria; funding is based on scientific merit, not institutional politics.

According to a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, 354 out of 356 drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019 were backed by NIH funding. When federal dollars are withheld for political reasons, the scientists working to advance medical research suffer—not the universities. This puts future treatments and cures on hold.

I submitted my NIH grant with the hope that it would be evaluated purely on its scientific value, free from the politics surrounding funding. In a politicized environment, I worry that my research could be jeopardized based on where I work rather than the quality of the work. That’s not accountability; it’s endangering vital research. The public must recognize this difference.

Nick Hayden is a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School.

Source link