NIH grant cuts throw science into a ‘downward spiral,’ researchers and advocates say

When Geza Kogler, a former professor at Kennesaw State University, lost his National Institutes of Health grant, he didn’t just lose funding; he lost a program he believed in and, quite possibly, his career in academia. Kogler recently retired from leading a program aimed at training the next generation of orthotists and researchers who specialize […]

A view of the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland, looking south beyond the Stokes Labs (Building 50) and Natcher Building (center) to the reflective façade of the National Library of Medicine (upper right). (Photo by National Institutes of Health)

When Geza Kogler, a former professor at Kennesaw State University, lost his National Institutes of Health grant, he didn’t just lose funding; he lost a program he believed in and, quite possibly, his career in academia.

Kogler recently retired from leading a program aimed at training the next generation of orthotists and researchers who specialize in designing, constructing and fitting medical devices such as braces, splints and supportive footwear. He described a “chilling effect” taking hold across Georgia’s universities after the Trump administration succeeded in cutting $783 million in funding for a wide range of disease research projects that had elements of diversity, equity and inclusion. 

He said professors are increasingly afraid to speak publicly about their work for fear of losing their livelihoods. Kogler said that because policy can change quickly, professors may be hesitant to speak out because they could lose support from their school’s administration.

“Look at the fallout now with this political climate of this past year, how many professors who have spoken out have lost their jobs. Professors are often outspoken. They have strong opinions, and people are losing their jobs over this. What’s the point of making a statement when you’re going to lose your livelihood?” said Kogler, who taught for nearly four decades.

Kogler said he would still be at Kennesaw State if his grant had not been terminated.

“I would say that if that grant was still there, I probably would have stayed,” Kogler said.

Kogler, who applied for and received an NIH Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant, said the program aimed to train undergraduate students who may receive needs-based financial aid at Kennesaw State in bioengineering, with a focus on orthotics and prosthetics. The program, which included a summer boot camp for the students recruited in high school, was terminated in May, affecting the first cohort of 16 students. Kogler said that losing the grant not only killed his own goals of expanding the Kennesaw State orthotics program, but he also had no idea what those students would do now.

“We’re mentoring them to get excited about research, and then right in the middle of their program, the rug gets pulled out from underneath them. What’s that to say for those kids? It’s a horrible message, and I bet that most of those kids wouldn’t want to go anywhere near academics and research at all,” Kogler said.

The Trump administration, which issued a memo on day one to end “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” has slashed funding for medical and scientific research that has not aligned with the executive orders the administration has issued, which the U.S. Supreme Court greenlit in August.

Grants that appear to be unrelated to DEI or COVID-19 vaccines have also been caught up in the Trump administration’s efforts to restructure research funding on the federal level. A Georgia State University project where researchers were developing a drug to treat Type 2 diabetes and obesity by increasing energy expenditure, which helps control blood sugar and promote weight loss, was terminated after having the words “trans” and “expression” flagged, despite the terms being “gene expression” and “translational therapeutic strategies.” The grant was terminated in April and has not been reinstated.

A recent American Association of University Professors survey revealed that nearly 10% of Georgia faculty respondents reported having a federal contract terminated by the Trump administration. These terminations are often linked to keywords flagged in grant proposals, including terms related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), such as “disparity” or “discrimination,” and the COVID-19 vaccine.

This has left researchers wary of even applying for new grants, according to the survey. 

Professors are now retreating further into what Amy Sharma, executive director of Science for Georgia, a science advocacy nonprofit, called an “ivory tower,” afraid to talk about what they do. She said the silence is fueled by a fear that any public criticism could prevent their grants from being reinstated. Sharma called this a “downward spiral” where silence leads to less public support for science, which in turn leads to more cuts.

“Now, [scientists are] going to further retreat into their corners and not talk to anyone, and not talk about the values of their research, which is going to turn into some sort of vicious cycle where they’re going to completely not talk about what they do because they just hope they don’t get their research funding cut,” Sharma said.

By targeting certain areas of research, the administration is effectively throwing these critical topics “to the wayside,” said Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a pro-science advocacy organization based in Cambridge, Mass. The consequences are already being felt, Barbati-Dajches said, with halted cancer treatment trials and a stop to research on preventative care and chronic diseases.

“We’re already seeing the impact of those cuts, and it’s hard to look into the future when there’s so much happening right now, but as things start to unfold more, not having research in those areas is going to have an impact on those communities of people. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when,” Barbati-Dajches said.

The financial impact of these terminations goes beyond a single researcher. Kogler said these federal grants also fund a university’s infrastructure through “overhead” payments. These funds, which at major research universities can be as high as 45% to 56% of the grant amount, are used to cover the costs of buildings, staff and other operational expenses. A new federal policy capped overhead expenses at around 15%, but it was blocked by a U.S. district judge from taking effect at NIH.

The long-term outlook is a major concern. Sharma said there could be a “lost generation of research,” where the pipeline of new scientists is disrupted and other countries become the leaders in scientific research. Kogler believes it could be “decades” before American academia recovers. He points to the loss of experienced academics, as well as the demoralizing effect on students who see their mentors’ projects terminated and their career paths thrown into question.

“I’m one example, but how many people are there like me? The future is not real good for me to pursue my research. I could go to private industry. I could go back into clinical practice and work in that space, and some of these other faculty will probably be taking other actions too.

“Who’s going to train the next generation of scientists and engineers in these areas? You need funding to do that, and that is gone,” Kogler said.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX