BOSTON — Massachusetts is a mecca for cutting-edge science.
New changes in how the federal government plans to fund research are sending a chill through many local laboratories.
Many scientists are trying to figure out if they can continue their work with deep budget cuts.
“My group and I study the evolution of disease, in particular, the evolution of cancers,” said John Quackenbush, Ph.D., the chair of the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Our goal is to identify the point in time, the place where those changes occur, with the idea that we can intervene and block cancer from progressing.”
While Quackenbush is usually thinking about curing cancer, he’s now trying to think of a way to keep his research alive after a sudden announcement by the National Institutes of Health.
The federal government’s leading provider of scientific research funds said they were capping the money institutions could receive for “indirect costs” at 15%.
“We’re all scrambling to try to figure out how we would make this work. Where we would find the additional money. We can’t just set up a GoFundMe page.”
Indirect costs cover things like rent, utilities, support staff and grant management.
Quackenbush said the federal government already has stringent oversight.
“The process of determining the indirect cost rate is a rigorous one. Every few years representatives from the government visit the institution. They do a thorough audit.”
“My hunch is that we would be better of with less, and not any government funding, but it’s a controversial question. There’s not a trivial right or wrong
answer to that,” said Jeffrey Miron, vice president for research at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that promotes less government.
But that doesn’t mean he thinks the Trump Administration’s approach is good.
“Because they’re not cutting the underlying funding. They’re disrupting. They’re creating a lot of confusion and anxiety and messiness of the activities, many of which are totally productive, and not having the conversation of, should we be funding this activity in the first place.”
Supporters of Alzheimer’s research believe they’d pass any litmus test like that. They’ve seen big steps forward for the roughly seven million Americans who currently have the disease.
“The scientific progress has been extraordinary,” said Jim Wessler, CEO of the MA/NH chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association. “I’ve been at this for 27 years and I would say the last five years have just been remarkable.”
That’s thanks to better diagnostic tools and the first drugs that can slow the progression of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Today, Wessler is worried, particularly for patients currently in clinical trials.
“With therapeutics that are now in phase 2, some even phase 3 clinical trials, and the idea that those would just be frozen for families that are looking for anything that will help their loved ones is extraordinarily concerning.”
Another concern is the regional economy.
The NIH distributed about $3.5 billion to 219 Massachusetts organizations in fiscal 2024.
That’s the highest amount per capita in the country.
Every dollar invested in research here creates $2-$3 in economic activity.
“There’s no doubt that the uncertainty about these federal NIH grants trickles down to every level of our economy,” said Greg Reibman, the president and CEO of the Charles River Regional Chamber.
“It will impact who’s able to go out to eat at a restaurant, who is able to hire a babysitter, who’s able to purchase their next car.”
Some of the largest recipients of NIH grants in Massachusetts include Mass General, Brigham and Women’s, Boston Children’s, and the UMass Medical School in Worcester.
Like many of the cost cutting measures initiated by President Trump and Elon Musk, this one is now being challenged in the courts.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2025 Cox Media Group