My View: Why federal research funding cuts threaten US, Arizona innovation
Story Highlights
- Federal government proposes 15% cap on indirect research grant costs
- Universities and institutions file lawsuits to stop proposed cuts
- Academic research has significantly contributed to technological advancements, like smartphones
If you’ve ever watched classic TV shows, you’re likely no stranger to the phrase “Space, the final frontier.” But a few months after World War II came to an end and before televisions even became common in homes, a report titled “Science, the Endless Frontier,” quietly signaled the start of an era that continues to impact our lives.
Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, made his case to President Harry Truman that the federal government should fund university research since it was critical to technological advancement and national prosperity. Even Bush could hardly imagine that another result would be contributing to global leadership by the United States.
How so? Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University, made the point while speaking recently at an event in Houston at Rice University’s innovation hub The Ion. To draw attention to the quiet heroes of U.S. academia who have changed lives, he held up his iPhone. “There were probably, by my estimation, 5,000 academic research groups through the decades that had something to do with the technology I’m holding in my hand. Nobody even knows they exist. Nobody knows the hundreds of patents that are in here and the thousands of articles that back up the patents that are in here,” he told the audience.
“Thousands of discoveries, tens of thousands of discoveries from academia over decades and decades and decades that allow all these technologies to exist. So, we’re the invisible hand,” said Crow, referring to economist Adam Smith’s theory that self-interest in markets — in this case, a communication device — unintentionally benefits the economy.
Ultimately, a relationship between academia and industry has grown into one of hand in glove. Thanks to government investments in research and development, it is hard to imagine one member of this synergistic partnership without the other.
Until now.
Recently, the federal government announced a policy change proposal to cap at 15% indirect cost reimbursements related to research grants for universities. Traditionally, each university has negotiated its own overhead rates on projects, which vary due to factors such as research expenses in addition to location. For anyone who has done even a home project, it can be a guesstimate at best when trying to consider surprise – let alone expected – costs that may arise along the way. In short, one size does not fit all.
Add to this, the cap isn’t limited to universities. Research institutes and hospitals receiving grants from research agencies, including National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), also face caps on indirect costs.
Long-term effects to consider
That means institutions like Banner Health, which received more than $17 million in NIH funding for research, studies, and clinical trials in fiscal year 2024, may need to consider curtailing their research pace or cut staff. Translational Genomics Research Institute is another organization that may need to weigh how its plans will be affected with the change.
Looking deeper, there are long-term effects to consider. There are those whose careers may come to a grinding halt in the U.S. since their expertise is put on hold when costs are considered too high for their research, so they take their talents overseas. Or the person who no longer has a chance to live a longer life due to an investigative study deemed too costly to pursue.
Is there any way to run interference? This month, the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of ASU joined a dozen other major U.S. universities plus three education groups in a lawsuit to stop the cuts proposed by NSF. The state of Arizona earlier was among nearly two dozen states that filed suit against NIH due to the cuts.
A few weeks ago, Sethuraman Panchanathan took a bold stand and resigned his post as NSF director amid significant budget cuts and restructuring efforts, and following termination of more than 400 grants considered to be tied to diversity, equity and inclusion. His name may sound familiar since he was an ASU professor along with a number of other titles and duties during nearly three decades at the university.
I wish I could finish this column with sure-fire solutions to quickly resolve, even end the talk of caps. Of course, I encourage you to reach out to your representatives on Capitol Hill to express your concerns, as well as contact any organizations mentioned here and in your circle to see how you can help.
My parents taught me long ago there are no free rides and the best solution isn’t necessarily about cutting corners. Everything carries a cost, especially those things that can be life-changing. And it’s up to us to lend a hand in finding solutions, especially when it comes to showing leadership. Now is that time.
Steven Zylstra is president and CEO of the Arizona Technology Council.