The Trump administration’s decision to cap indirect research costs at 15% under National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants has sent shockwaves through the academic and research communities. Previously, Harvard Medical School (HMS) received nearly 69.5% in indirect funding from NIH grants, allowing it to cover administrative salaries, infrastructure costs, lab maintenance, and other essential overhead expenses. Under the new policy, this funding would be significantly slashed, reducing Harvard’s indirect funding allocation from NIH grants by nearly $100 million.
University officials and research stakeholders have voiced concerns that this drastic reduction in financial support could undermine groundbreaking scientific research. Institutions rely on these funds not only for direct research costs, such as salaries for scientists and equipment purchases, but also for the upkeep of laboratories and other necessary operational expenses.
Harvard’s response: Addressing student and faculty concerns
As concerns over funding cuts mount, Harvard Medical School has emphasized the importance of mental health and well-being support for students and faculty affected by the uncertainty. In a recent message to students and researchers, HMS Dean George Daley acknowledged the heightened stress levels within the community and encouraged individuals to utilize campus well-being resources, including the Countway Cuddles pet therapy program.
The initiative, run by the Countway Library, features therapy animals such as golden retrievers, labrador mixes, and even a therapy guinea pig named Hermie. The program aims to provide a calming space for students and faculty facing burnout, stress, and anxiety.
Harvard has also reinforced access to other mental health support resources, including:
- CAMHS Cares, a 24/7 mental health support hotline.
- TimelyCare, a virtual well-being service.
- The Harvard Ombuds Office, which assists students and faculty in navigating professional and academic challenges.
What the funding cut means for research in US universities
Harvard is not the only institution affected by the new NIH funding policy. Universities across the United States rely on NIH grants to sustain their research infrastructure. The 15% cap on indirect costs could lead to:
- A decline in research output due to reduced funding for critical studies.
- An exodus of talent as young scientists and postdocs opt for private-sector roles with better financial stability.
- Increased reliance on private donors, shifting control of research priorities away from public interests and toward corporate or philanthropic agendas.
- Strains on university finances, forcing institutions to divert endowment funds or tuition revenue to compensate for lost federal dollars.
Harvard’s financial strength and the legal battle ahead
Despite the funding cut concerns, Harvard University maintains an endowment valued at over $53 billion, giving it more financial flexibility than many institutions. However, whether the university will reallocate significant internal resources to cover lost NIH funding remains uncertain.
The new NIH policy is also facing legal challenges from leading research institutions. Universities argue that the sudden cap on indirect funding violates long-standing agreements between the federal government and academic institutions. The lawsuit’s outcome could determine whether Harvard and other universities will need to make permanent adjustments to their research funding models.
Faculty and student reactions: Mixed responses to Harvard’s approach
The pet therapy initiative has garnered a mixed response. While some students appreciate the acknowledgment of mental health challenges in the face of potential funding losses, others have criticized Harvard’s approach as a superficial response to a deeper structural issue.
“It’s great that we have therapy animals, but that doesn’t solve the bigger problem,” said one HMS PhD candidate, according to a local media report. “Without adequate funding, research programs will suffer, and that’s the real concern here.”
Faculty members, too, are raising alarms over the potential long-term consequences of the NIH cuts. Researchers fear that reduced funding could limit their ability to hire postdoctoral fellows, procure cutting-edge equipment, and maintain state-of-the-art facilities. The move has prompted concerns that younger scientists and graduate students may seek careers outside academia, weakening the country’s research pipeline.
