{shortcode-a2c7c148818e363294346c527f5250d2320e5cf3}

If one thing is certain, it’s that the future of federal research funding at Harvard is anything but.

On Wednesday, Harvard Medical School Dean George Q. Daley ’82 announced HMS is “on track” to cut at least 20 percent of research spending by fiscal year’s end — a directive from the University’s central administration. The announcement came just days before a portion of Harvard’s National Institute of Health grants began flowing again to the University after a four-month freeze by the Trump administration.

Harvard may have won this battle, but it hasn’t won the war. With a murky funding future ahead, the University must adapt its approach to scientific research.

It’s tempting to view the financial unstopperage as a panacea. Lawsuit won, some money returned — so what’s the problem? But the costs of the funding freeze don’t show up cleanly on the balance sheet. Research projects aren’t simply frozen in time along with their funds: Flagship studies — like the Nurses’ Health Studies that have tracked hundreds of thousands of participants — have limped along on skeleton staffing, risking sample loss. And once research halts, restarting can take longer and cost more — even when dollars return.

Broadly, part of Harvard's institutional draw was its ability to secure top-notch research funding for projects. While the impact of the freeze is difficult to discern at present, HMS’ federal woes may have scared off a crowd of talent that may impact the school for years to come, as noted by administrators.

Yes, the freeze was reversed. But many funds have yet to land, and more headwinds loom. Washington has floated capping “indirect” reimbursement — the federal contribution to overhead — at 15 percent, far below Harvard’s negotiated 69 percent rate. Meanwhile, Congress hiked the endowment tax from 1.4 to 8 percent this summer, further squeezing revenues.

The scope of challenge has shifted: No longer must Harvard contend with only backfilling last year’s cuts. It must now learn to navigate a new funding normal in which the federal government is a much less enthusiastic participant. Given the growing uncertainty shrouding Harvard’s federal funding, the University would do well to consider reorienting how it will source capital in the years to come.

In the near term, HMS is leaning on bridge funds to sustain roughly 74 percent of federally sponsored research through the coming fiscal year and to support M.D.-Ph.D. students and junior faculty — a prudent and practical decision. As it looks to the future, HMS must continue to prioritize the independence of its research.

Donations have flooded in, a boon to continued efforts. HMS has raised more than $8 million since federal support for its M.D.-Ph.D. program was revoked, and recent gifts from over 4,000 individuals — including $30 million from K. Lisa Yang for a new Brain-Body Center and roughly $19 million from Leonard V. Blavatnik — show how philanthropy and donor outreach might function as a stopgap while HMS continues to weigh its options.

At realistic volumes, individual gifts won’t match the scale or stability of federal science on their own. Last year, HMS inhaled $230 million in federal grants, almost three quarters of its research funding and a third of its total operating revenue. The 2025 projection is $251 million. Without signs of a slowdown in funding demand, a long-term plan will have to reckon with those magnitudes.

The future should be paved with common sense, an approach of which HMS is already abreast. First, it should continue to use emergency-type funds to protect people and time. Doing so will shield longitudinal cohorts and core facilities, keep vulnerable labs from attrition, and keep pressing in court and Congress to secure awarded funds.

Second, HMS and Harvard more broadly should develop a long-term strategy to build a sturdier funding base — composed of private sector partnerships or donor pools, for example — that will fill the gaps left by the government without marking academic independence as the sacrificial lamb.

Harvard is doing the right things to weather the storm. But as the government’s vows to appeal and structural inertia make clear, Harvard must look elsewhere for cash as the tempest rages. Until then, its rainy day fund will only continue to dwindle.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.