The strong, uninterrupted partnership among the federal government, research universities, and industry underpins America’s leadership in biomedical discovery and its application to human health. Federal funding for scientific research has helped make the United States a magnet for outstanding talent, a springboard for ambitious ideas, and a wellspring of rapid and accelerating progress, manifested in an ever-growing list of life-saving treatments for heart disease, cancer, and genetic diseases, along with technological innovations that have strengthened our economy. It is no wonder that the American model—refined and improved over nearly eighty years—is the envy of the world.
On Friday evening, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released new policy guidance that will weaken that position by deeply cutting an important but frequently misunderstood source of research funding in existing and emerging areas of promise. These circumstances are deeply concerning to many of us. Earlier today, Vice Provost for Research John Shaw outlined measures that the University is taking to monitor these developments and to provide guidance as available.
Every scientific and medical breakthrough, whether in basic or applied research, depends on the people who conduct the research, as well as the materials and laboratory equipment they use. These components of research, readily attributable to a specific project, are funded as direct costs, but they do not encompass all essential aspects of research. The work also requires laboratory facilities, heat and electricity, and people to administer the research and ensure that it is conducted securely and in accordance with federal regulations. The expenditures for these critical parts of the research enterprise are called indirect costs. They are substantial, and they are unavoidable, not least because it can be very expensive to build, maintain, and equip space to conduct research at the frontiers of knowledge.
Implementing a 15 percent cap on indirect support, as the NIH has announced it intends to do, would slash funding and cut research activity at Harvard and nearly every research university in our nation. The discovery of new treatments would slow, opportunities to train the next generation of scientific leaders would shrink, and our nation’s science and engineering prowess would be severely compromised. At a time of rapid strides in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, brain science, biological imaging, and regenerative biology, and when other nations are expanding their investment in science, America should not drop knowingly and willingly from her lead position on the endless frontier.
Along with our fellow research universities and many others across higher education, industry, and the wider scientific community, Harvard will continue to advocate for a nation strengthened and enriched through its research efforts, a nation that wields knowledge in service of its people. Our institutions are as necessary for the health and prosperity of our country as they have ever been. With rapid advances in so many areas of the life sciences, breakthroughs are becoming more frequent and more consequential. Now is the time to defend the research partnership that has done so much for our nation and the world, and that can do even more in the future.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber