Federal funding freeze leaves grad students, postdocs scrambling for labs, support

First-year Ph.D. students in Harvard Medical School’s Biological and Biomedical Sciences Program are facing an unprecedented challenge as they begin a process that will soon lead to one of the most consequential decisions in their careers: finding the right lab and mentor for their research.

“I’m supposed to be choosing labs, but all of the labs I’m talking to and rotating in, they have no idea what the funding situation is, if they can take students, if they have money for our salaries or the projects we want to do,” said Jason Biundo, a first-year doctoral student. “It feels disappointing.”

The University has been buffeted in recent weeks by a series of Trump administration moves to halt or cut federal research funds, beginning on April 15 when the administration announced it would freeze $2.2 billion in grants. In response, Harvard has filed suit, arguing the government’s actions and demands violate federal law and the University’s First Amendment rights.

Harvard is not the only institution of higher education in the nation losing federal research funds. The administration has targeted at least two dozen others and made at least $11 billion in cuts. Scientists say the losses threaten to upend the government-higher education partnership that has led to medical breakthroughs that saved millions of lives and launched numerous companies in the post-war period.

An integral part of that innovation ecosystem involves ensuring a steady pipeline of up-and-coming researchers.

Graduate students are “the engines in our labs that are generating all these new ideas and all this data,” said Beth Stevens, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. “Their salaries are covered by federal funds. It’s so fundamentally important: the ability to recruit amazing talent, keep amazing talent, and then support them in the next phases of their careers where they’re going to apply for grants. It’s the way we do it.”

Ph.D. students doing work in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences (BBS) program typically spend their first year rotating between labs, both “auditioning” for long-term research positions and doing their own assessments: Is it a good cultural fit? Would the principal investigator be a good mentor for their personality and career goals? Would they be able to do the kind of research they’re passionate about? By the third year of the program, students’ salaries should be covered by a combination of their own federal grants and work they do to assist their PIs on the PIs’ grants. 

Biundo plans to study spinal cord injuries, a topic that’s deeply personal to him: When he was an undergraduate at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, he suffered a serious spinal cord injury that left him partially paralyzed.

“Recently one of the best funders of spinal cord injury research, the Department of Defense’s [Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs], had its funding cut. It was about $40 million, a third of all spinal cord injury funding,” Biundo said. “I think it was already an underfunded condition to begin with, with such a large patient population, and to see that is really disheartening for the future of spinal cord research.”

Postdoc Cherish Taylor fears her funding will be terminated at the end of the current funding cycle because the program falls under the umbrella of diversity, equity, and inclusion programming.

The funding uncertainty isn’t just impacting doctoral candidates. Cherish Taylor, a postdoctoral researcher studying environmental risk factors for the onset, progression, and severity of psychiatric disorders, has been funded by the NIH Blueprint Diversity Specialized Predoctoral to Postdoctoral Advancement in Neuroscience Award (D-SPAN). The program supported graduate students and postdoctoral scholars from diverse backgrounds, including groups that have been under-represented in neuroscience. 

“People of color, even to some extent women, but less so nowadays, and certainly people in the LGBTQ community, we are minorities within the STEM field. You may be the only person that looks like you in your program, in your department. Having this type of grant program is nice for remembering that you aren’t actually the only person who looks like you in the field.” 

Taylor fears her funding will be terminated at the end of the current funding cycle because the program falls under the umbrella of diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, which has been a target of the current administration.

“My PI has repeatedly assured me that she will do whatever she can to provide funding for me,” Taylor said. “But it still doesn’t remove that emotional burden of knowing your peers are not in the same place, people you know and care about and want the best for.”

Harvard President Alan Garber announced on May 14 that the University is dedicating $250 million of central funding to support research affected by suspensions and cancellations. 

“We stand behind our thousands of outstanding faculty, postdoctoral, staff, and student researchers,” Garber said. “Together they continue to make revolutionary discoveries, cure illness, deepen our understanding of the world, and translate that understanding into impact and invaluable teaching and mentorship that will produce the next generation of leading scientists and innovators. It is crucial for this country, the economy, and humankind that this work continues.”

Some labs may be able to support junior researchers through philanthropic funding, industry partnerships, or operational adjustments. But uncertainty remains.

“At the beginning of the year, things felt like, you’re starting a new Ph.D. program, and you have a very bright future ahead,” said Biundo. “And then you’re hit with the uncertainty of this career path as a whole.”