Federal funding halt leaves graduate students, postdoctoral researchers scrambling for laboratories, support

First-year Ph.D. candidates in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences Program at Harvard Medical School are confronting an unprecedented dilemma as they embark on a journey leading to a pivotal choice in their careers: selecting the appropriate lab and mentor for their investigations.

“I’m meant to be selecting labs, but all the labs I’m engaging with and rotating through, they’re uncertain about the funding situation, whether they can accept students, or if they have financial resources for our salaries or the projects we aim to pursue,” expressed Jason Biundo, a first-year doctoral candidate. “It feels disheartening.”

In recent weeks, the University has been rocked by a series of actions from the Trump administration aimed at halting or reducing federal research funding, starting on April 15 when it was declared that $2.2 billion in grants would be frozen. Consequently, Harvard has initiated legal action, claiming that the government’s actions and demands infringe upon federal law and the University’s First Amendment rights.

Harvard is not alone among higher education institutions facing cuts to federal research funding. The administration has targeted at least two dozen others and implemented over $11 billion in reductions. Researchers warn that these losses threaten to disrupt the collaboration between government and higher education that has resulted in medical advancements saving countless lives and spawning numerous companies in the post-war era.

A crucial component of that innovation framework is ensuring a reliable flow of emerging researchers.

Graduate students are “the driving force in our laboratories, generating all these fresh ideas and data,” stated Beth Stevens, an associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. “Their salaries derive from federal funding. It’s fundamentally essential: the capacity to attract outstanding talent, retain exceptional individuals, and then support them in the subsequent stages of their careers as they apply for grants. That’s our approach.”

Ph.D. candidates involved in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences (BBS) program usually spend their initial year rotating among labs, effectively “auditioning” for long-term positions while conducting personal evaluations: Is it a compatible cultural environment? Will the principal investigator provide adequate mentorship for their personality and career aspirations? Can they conduct the type of research they are passionate about? By the third year of the program, candidates’ salaries should be financed through a combination of their own federal grants and work in support of their PIs on their respective grants.

Biundo intends to investigate spinal cord injuries, a subject that resonates personally with him: While he was an undergraduate at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, he experienced a severe spinal cord injury that caused partial paralysis.

“Recently one of the major funders of spinal cord injury research, the Department of Defense’s [Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs], saw its funding reduced. It was around $40 million, one-third of all spinal cord injury funding,” Biundo noted. “I believed it was already an underfunded condition, considering the large patient population, and to witness that is truly disheartening for the future of spinal cord research.”

Postdoc Cherish Taylor worries her funding will cease at the conclusion of the current funding period since the program is categorized under diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The uncertainty regarding funding is affecting not just doctoral candidates. Cherish Taylor, a postdoctoral researcher focused on environmental risk factors affecting psychiatric disorders, has received support from the NIH Blueprint Diversity Specialized Predoctoral to Postdoctoral Advancement in Neuroscience Award (D-SPAN). This initiative has aided graduate students and postdoctoral scholars from diverse backgrounds including groups traditionally under-represented in neuroscience.

“Minorities in STEM include individuals of color, to some degree women, but less nowadays, and certainly members of the LGBTQ community. We represent a small percentage in the field. Often, you may be the only one who looks like you in your program or department. Such grant programs serve as a reminder that you’re not alone in the field.”

Taylor is anxious that her funding will end at the close of the current funding cycle because the program falls within the priorities of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which have been targeted by the present administration.

“My PI has consistently assured me that she will do everything in her power to secure funding for me,” Taylor remarked. “However, that doesn’t alleviate the emotional weight of knowing your colleagues aren’t in the same position, individuals you know and care for and wish the best for.”

On May 14, Harvard President Alan Garber announced the University will allocate $250 million of central funding to back research affected by the halts and cancellations.

“We support our thousands of exceptional faculty, postdocs, staff, and student researchers,” Garber stated. “Together, they continue to make groundbreaking discoveries, heal illnesses, enhance our comprehension of the world, and translate that knowledge into impactful education and mentorship that will nurture the next generation of leading scientists and innovators. It is vital for this nation, the economy, and humanity that this work persists.”

Some laboratories may manage to sustain junior researchers through philanthropic contributions, industry collaborations, or operational modifications. Yet, uncertainty lingers.

“At the year’s start, it felt like, you’re embarking on a new Ph.D. journey with a very bright outlook ahead,” Biundo reflected. “Then you’re confronted with the uncertainties of this entire career trajectory.”