ucs-concerns-over-trumps-grant-review-pause

UC’s Concerns Over Trump’s Grant Review Pause

Leaders of the University of California, the nation’s top higher education recipient of federal research funding, are raising questions and voicing concerns about the ramifications of a temporary Trump administration pause on research grant reviews announced this week. The administration abruptly canceled some National Institutes of Health study sessions and advisory council meetings, where scientific experts gather to assess grant proposals before funding recommendations are finalized. The NIH is the largest funder of UC federal research, providing $2.6 billion in 2023-24 — 62% of the university’s federal awards that year. The federal funds power UC’s vast research enterprise involving more than 10,000 grants addressing infectious disease, brain injury, vaccinations, Alzheimer’s and other scientific and medical fields.

Impact on Researchers and Funding

UC leaders are trying to assess the impact of the grant review pause, which stemmed from orders to halt communications, travel and public activities by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. It is standard practice for new presidential administrations to temporarily pause some agency operations while they review them; a Jan. 21 directive from the Department of Health and Human Services noted it was “consistent with precedent” and would last through Feb. 1.

Harold R. Collard, UC San Francisco vice chancellor for research, told his faculty he expected “a return to normal operations soon.” But should the pause by the world’s biggest funder of biomedical research continue weeks or months beyond Feb. 1, researchers fear it could bring potentially life-changing work to a halt. A senior UC leader said the Trump actions have triggered anxieties across the university system’s 10 campuses, six academic medical centers and 20 health professional schools.

Researcher Concerns and Anxieties

Researchers at UCLA, UC San Diego, and UC Davis have confirmed receiving federal notices that grant reviews have been halted; one received a directive to “cease and desist,” sowing confusion over what part of the research project should be stopped, the UC official said. Research project leaders have asked whether they should halt their work and continue to pay their graduate students. Another researcher was in an online NIH study session this week when the meeting was abruptly ended with no explanation and the participants were locked out.

“There’s lots of anxieties out there,” the UC official told The Times. “My main message to everybody is that we must stay calm. We’re not making assumptions. We’re going to gather the facts.”

Personal Stories of Impact

Christine Liu, a postdoctoral researcher in the UC San Francisco Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, whose salary is funded by the NIH, said her immediate work had not been affected by the pause. But she is concerned over future research opportunities as she prepares funding applications.

“We are all worried about our own funding and stability, but this is very concerning for long-term scientific progress,” said Liu, who studies mice as part of an effort to better understand schizophrenia and other brain issues. “Any small change in schedules can have a far-reaching impact on whether a drug can go on the market in a few years or whether people can get potentially life-saving surgeries or therapies that are in clinical trials.”

Christian Cazares, a postdoctoral cognitive science scholar at UC San Diego who researches autism, also receives NIH funding. Cazares said that while immediate pay and research did not appear in jeopardy, he was concerned about future work, especially as the Trump administration revokes diversity-, equity- and inclusion-related programs and has put federal workers in those areas on paid leave.

“I am currently funded. But the people who run the program that funds me are on paid leave. We have not heard at all from them about what will happen next year when the grant is supposed to be renewed,” Cazares said. “I do not know if the work I have will exist.

“The NIH communications pause feels like a part of a bigger shift and attack on sciences because there is a suspicion about our work or who is selected to do this when it is in fact very competitive and benefits society as a whole.”