Research is the backbone of Cleveland’s Case Western Reserve University and colleges like it.
The private university worked on nearly 400 National Institutes of Health-backed projects during the last fiscal year alone. Those ranged from researching diabetes interventions and cancer to restoring hand functions for people with spinal cord injuries.
But now, the Trump administration is disrupting how America’s research system has operated for decades by changing how much money institutions get to support those projects, leaving academics and the institutions that power innovation reeling.
This abrupt change is generating “a deep cloud of anxiety and panic and great uncertainty” over Case Western Reserve’s University Circle campus, according to Senior Vice President for Research J. Michael Oakes.
“[It’s] as if there’s a storm brewing and you just don’t know how bad it’s going to be,” he said.
Earlier this month, the NIH moved to cut the additional pool of grant money given to help universities to cover overhead support – think things such as lab fees or administrative tasks – to a standardized 15%.
Universities typically negotiate those rates, referred to as indirect costs, with the federal government. The average was about 27%, though many major research universities have rates above 50%. Case Western Reserve’s was 61%.
At the moment, the cuts are currently paused due to legal challenges. But, if the Trump administration is able to implement them, Case Western Reserve could lose an estimated $38.8 million from these cuts alone, according to an analysis from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
In Ohio, Case Western’s total of these grants is second behind only Ohio State University. The state’s flagship institution could lose about $49.5 million. Ohio as a whole is forecasted to lose about $185.7 million, the tenth highest amount in the country.
Case Western Reserve won’t comment on hiring freezes or changes in light of potential grant cuts
Case Western Reserve officials declined to say specifically if the university is freezing hiring or delaying graduate admissions in preparation for a loss of this federal money. Officials simply said the university is “examining ways to maximize efficiency and productivity” given the “enormous uncertainty in the federal grant system.”
Places such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia University recently implemented pre-emptive cost-saving moves after this announcement.
Supporters of reducing these federal grants for overhead say the indirect cost rates are too high. They also point to university endowments – Case Western Reserve’s is estimated to have a market value of more than $2.1 billion – as a funding pool to tap into. (Much of that money has specific restrictions on how it can be spent.)
The NIH estimates it could save more than $4 billion a year by implementing this overhead cap. It aligns with the Trump administration’s recent push to gut various offices in an attempt to cut costs.
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from opaque administrative expenses means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less,” a Trump spokesperson told NBC News Feb. 18.
‘The politics of research’
Now, at Case Western Reserve, researchers are “worrying about budgets instead of worrying about how a cell divides or [how a] heart stays healthy,” Oakes said.
The research opportunities at Case Western Reserve are draw for students. About 85% of undergrads work on some project before graduation. There are also robust research options within the graduate and doctorate programs.
Oakes said he suspects students are probably feeling anxious because “they don’t fully understand the business of research, the money of research, or, frankly, the politics of research.”
During his own days as a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Oakes got engrossed in a pretty niche topic: Toxic waste facilities in America.
His dissertation looked at whether landfills were illegally putting a burden on poor people and/or people of color. His “little scientific nerd study,” as he called it, ended up getting some national attention, opening his eyes to the impact research can have. He’s worried the current environment may mean other students won’t have similar experiences.
“Younger people…are saying, ‘Well, I don’t know if I want to be a scientist anymore, I’ll do something else,’ and that’s a loss,” he said.
How Trump cuts could impact Cleveland’s economy
Oakes believes getting less money will have a reverberating impact off campuses and in communities. Innovations created from these NIH-backed projects spark major breakthroughs and innovations that help Americans.
Plus, it could lead to job losses for physicians, scientists and other staff members. That’ll impact the local economies of “biomedical cities like Cleveland, Birmingham [Alabama], [and] Norman, Oklahoma,” Oakes said.
That’s echoed by leaders including Greater Cleveland Partnership CEO Bajiu Shah.
“The loss of funds to research and health institutions will result in immediate jobs loss and long-term setbacks in breakthroughs for patients and society, business growth for our region and state, and global competitiveness for the US,” he wrote on LinkedIn.
It’s why Oakes recently chose to write an op-ed in Crain’s Cleveland Business about the development. He tried to use language familiar to those in that world, including writing an analogy about widgets.
He said it was all intentional “so business leaders, who may not have any understanding of how a federal grant works or why it’d be important to support a university like Case, could see a little bit behind the curtain.”
What’s next for research universities?
For Case Western Reserve, it’s a waiting game. University leaders created a website to give researchers guidance. President Eric Kaler sends regular emails.
They’re also watching legal challenges, though it isn’t directly part of any lawsuit. But it is a member of two national groups listed as plaintiffs challenging Trump’s cuts.
Oakes said he really hopes that universities, members of Congress and the Trump administration can come together to discuss how research institutions can become more efficient and enhance their productivity. He said the system isn’t perfect.
“I’m always happy to get better, but the way it’s being done [now] is what worries me, because it jeopardizes the whole thing,” he said.
What type of coverage is missing when it comes to higher education in Ohio? Our reporter Amy Morona wants to know what you think! Send her a note by filling out this form.