Kimberly Cooper, a developmental biologist at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and associate director of the biology PhD program, emphasized the challenges faced by students due to the current funding situation. Cooper noted that admitting a normal class size would result in having students whom the program could not effectively support. One of her undergraduate mentees was not admitted to any graduate programs this year and is considering staying on as an unpaid volunteer in a lab due to her strong desire to continue research. Cooper expressed concern that this situation might lead to a scenario where only those with independent financial resources can pursue research.
Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has observed a decline in the issuance of NIH T32 grants—training grants essential for supporting graduate and postdoctoral research. As of February this year, only two new T32 grants have been issued, a stark contrast to the 69 grants awarded during the same period last year. While March is not typically the peak month for T32 grants, Berg is worried about what the current inactivity might mean for the future.
The NIH’s decrease in training grants aligns with similar trends at the National Science Foundation (NSF), where funding from the Directorate for STEM Education has slowed significantly. The NSF funds a broader scope of research, including non-biomedical projects, and administers the Graduate Research Fellowship Program, which supports many graduate students annually. The impact on the GRFP awards, usually announced in April, remains uncertain. Berg expressed concerns about the negative message such instability sends to students aspiring to scientific careers.
Beyond affecting trainees, the uncertainty in disbursing training grants and new NIH policies on capping indirect costs—which cover essential lab functions—impact faculty whose laboratories rely heavily on graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. Ran Blekhman, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, highlighted how federal grants form a substantial part of many labs’ funding, with his own lab being almost entirely NIH-funded. The uncertainty has shifted scientists’ focus from purely conducting research to ensuring the survival of their scientific work and careers.
Blekhman noted that he actively seeks non-federal funding sources. However, funds from private foundations often do not adequately support basic science and impose restrictive overhead limits. With no undiscovered funding sources available, researchers are forced to explore all options.
To navigate the funding challenges, labs are developing contingency plans. Cooper, with several NIH proposals pending, recently assisted a postdoctoral scholar in applying for a fellowship abroad. Meanwhile, Blekhman is contemplating the sustainable number of students his lab can support under potential funding cuts.
Despite the funding concerns, students remain committed to scientific careers. Robert Schwartz, a consultant for college and graduate essays, mentioned that some students are taking additional gap years in European labs, hopeful for future improvements in U.S. funding. For instance, Fadul is reevaluating her application targets, prioritizing MD-PhD programs with more stable federal funding.
During this uncertain period, Cooper, Blekhman, and their colleagues focus on providing better support for their trainees, educating them on federal funding mechanisms, and maintaining a positive outlook. Cooper remarked that their aim is to allow lab members to pursue their scientific work without worrying about financial stability.
