Hundreds of USC and UCLA scientists and student researchers gathered outside of the Wilshire Federal Building on Friday, protesting the possible cut of federal funding to research programs under the Stand up for Science movement.
USC received $387 million in research funding from the National Institute of Health. This funding is put toward grants for specific research, as well as the upkeep of laboratory buildings, staff, graduate training and janitorial services. Without federal funding, schools across the United States are at risk of losing research projects, faculty members and students.
Margarid Turnamian, a clinical psychology graduate student at USC and organizer of the event, emphasized that funding cuts could be far-reaching because science is critical to everyday life.
“Science affects every single person’s life on a daily basis,” she said. “Everything that we use: from our cell phones to the roads that we drive on, to the foods that we eat, to the way that we communicate, is based in science.”
With the threat of federal funding cuts, Turnamian said she fears many people underestimate just how much they rely on scientific advancements. She pointed out that the economic argument against science funding — that it is not worth investing in — is misleading.
“At the rally on Friday, one of the speakers, Duke Kahn, who’s a professor of psychology at USC, brought up a great stat[istic] that every $1 that goes to NIH funding is returned into the economy at like $2.50,” she said.
USC already has frozen the hiring of faculty and has paused research. According to Darby Saxbe, a USC professor of psychology and director of the graduate program in clinical psychology, the cuts have the potential to harm the entire “scientific ecosystem”.
“A lot of universities around the country have suspended graduate admissions, or they’re cutting their size of their graduate programs, so that really affects the future of our scientific workforce,” Saxbe said. Harvard University, MIT and Emory University are among the universities that have already frozen faculty hiring and admissions.
Saxbe also voiced concern for her junior colleagues just starting their research, as well as graduate students.
“I have a couple of graduate students in my lab right now who are funded by diversity supplements that are designed to fund students from underrepresented groups,” Saxbe said. “I’m really concerned about what some of these cuts are going to mean for their training and their ability to complete their degrees on time.”
The executive order released on January 20, “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” and executive order “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ cost efficiency initiative,” released on February 26, are also affecting federal funding of scientific research.
The order aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion programs calls for the termination of any federal funding to programs including DEI. In addition, a new list of discouraged or forbidden words has been circulating according to the National Science Foundation to determine if an active research project includes DEI initiatives. A few of these words include trauma, female, ethnicity and marginalized.
The University of Pennsylvania already directed its departmental chairs to reduce graduate student admissions.
Although no concrete decisions have been made by USC, schools around the country are bracing for potential impact.
According to a statement from a USC spokesperson, “the university is closely monitoring possible changes in federal government funding to understand the implications for university and medical research.”
“Although it’s a little bit up in the air right now… a lot of institutions and universities, including USC, kind of rely [on those costs] to run the university and run studies,” Turnamian said. Without sufficient funding, schools face difficult decisions, including potential layoffs and “restructuring.”
She said that some universities are already pulling employment offers.
“They had to kind of send out offers like, ‘Congratulations, you got in,’ and then because of funding cuts and the threat of funding cuts, they had to pull offers,” Turnamian said.
Beyond the financial implications, Turnamian shared deeper issues. She referenced reports of certain research topics being flagged for exclusion from funding, including studies on gender and minority groups.
“Not being able to do science that reflects populations that have already been marginalized … hurts research,” she said. With the future of funding uncertain and institutional responses unclear, she remains hopeful but on guard.
“I think people are trying to stay hopeful,” she said. “We have to try.”