"If funding gets cut, it's not likely thatHarvard would be the first to get the axe becauseit's such a prominent research institution," saysLong. "The reason we get a lot of money is we havea proven track record of doing worthwhileresearch.

"That's our hope--that our reputation willsupport us," Long adds.

But name recognition alone will not saveHarvard from budget reductions. Researchers mustcontinuously perform solid research to maintainfunding.

"It may appear that Harvard may not be cut asmuch," Feldman says.

"But that's because better quality research isbeing done."

Indeed, even if Harvard's researchers continue to outperform their colleagues, funding may be pinched, Glashow says.

"Harvard will continue to do very well incomparison to other universities, but it willstill hurt a lot," says Glashow.

But Ralbovsky says university reputation is notthe prime consideration in the grants process.

"The view is that the quality of the science isthe factor," he says.

Few Alternatives

Scientists will have few alternatives iffederal funding declines, Silvera says.

"I haven't seen any replacement for federalfunding," he says.

Corporations, which once served as the enginefor technological research, are now reducing theirresearch role to cut costs, Martin says.

"Industry can't pick up the slack if governmentfunding drops," he says.

Martin attributes part of this decrease inindustry funding to the fact that companies canfreely obtain the results of competitors' researchefforts.