In response to federal cuts, researchers have developed strategies to tighten their budgets and secure funding from other sources, further mitigating the immediate impact of sequestration.
Since researchers had already faced years of stagnant federal funding, many investigators had grown accustomed to cutting costs by tightening lab supply budgets and reducing staff size.
In addition, Asetta and Lennox, who help scientists administer research projects in SEAS and FAS, respectively, said that they have increased focus on training investigators so they can be more successful in the grant selection process.
“It’s always been tough to get money,” said physics professor David A. Weitz, adding that high demand for federal grants and the termination of existing scientific investigations are not new problems facing researchers.
Sequestration, and the tightened funding landscape that has followed, has also further fueled researchers’ pursuit of funds from private companies, philanthropic institutions, and foundations.
David Jacobson, a communications strategist for Moody’s Investors Service, wrote in an email that research-based universities such as Harvard—unlike stand-alone research institutes—are funded by a diverse group of sources and have a more flexible set of expenses. Accordingly, Harvard and its counterparts “should be able to contain costs and seek new revenue opportunities to offset federal funding cuts,” Jacobson wrote. Corporate grants and revenues from gifts are potential alternative funding sources, according to Jacobson.
“You have to look beyond the traditional sources,” Weitz said. “If money is green, you should spend it.”
A TWO-FOLD PROBLEM
While the prospects for scientists in the short-term remain unclear, many researchers and administrators share the opinion that tougher financial circumstances could deter budding researchers, thus diminishing prospects for the future of scientific research. Experienced researchers possess the reputation and knowledge to secure funding from a diverse set of sources, but many young prospective scientists may need to rely on federal funding to launch their careers.
“An established researcher might be able to cope with the cuts better than someone who is just entering the field,” said Constantine Vardavas, senior research scientist at the School of Public Health.
The problem, Vardavas explained, is two-fold: young researchers may struggle to attain funding from federal agencies or non-federal institutions, and senior lab leaders may lack the money to hire them.
As a result, sequestration acts as “a self-inflicted wound” on the nation’s “intellectual and human capital,” as described by University President Drew G. Faust.
Moreover, because of the uncertainty surrounding the exact implementation of federal cuts, it is difficult to properly budget for staff additions, which present the largest and most significant costs for labs, according to David D. Cox ’00, an assistant biology and computer science professor. Given bleaker funding prospects, Cox has only made a few hires, often selecting foreign post-doctoral students who receive funding from their countries’ governments.
“We never dreamed that it would get this tight,” he said.
—Staff writer Nikita Kansra can be reached at nkansra01@college.harvard.edu. You can follow her on Twitter @NikitaKansra.