Two months have passed since the Trump administration froze and proposed major cuts to NIH funding, and for Pitt researchers, the future of research is uncertain.

President Donald Trump’s initiative to cap indirect costs at 15% has been sued by 22 states and organizations in which Pitt is represented. Pitt has directed research groups not to dismantle and is making preparations for either outcome of the lawsuit, according to senior Pitt researchers.

The NIH guidance to cap indirect costs came on Feb. 7 and was halted via a temporary restraining order on Feb. 10. On March 5, a U.S. district judge in Boston issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, further temporarily blocking the cuts while the suits proceed.

“The University appreciated the judge’s ruling in support of life-saving federal research funding, and continues to monitor federal actions,” a University spokesman said.

Chandan Sen, university-endowed professor of surgery at Pitt School of Medicine and chief scientific officer of wound care at UPMC, is the principal investigator of four NIH-funded projects. 

Sen participates in department leadership meetings discussing the University’s role to act as a “buffer to the shock,” encouraging researchers to focus on their work in the midst of confusion.

“I have a clear message from senior leadership to not dismantle as long as you can maintain major programs,” Sen said. 

In the situation where the cuts do not end up dropping to 15%, Sen said researchers would conduct “business as usual.” Sen said, to his knowledge, the University has crafted step-by-step plans in cases of both outcomes of the court rulings, but he did not elaborate on the plans. 

“It is their plan, and we are kept abreast and we are consulted for what we think about it,” Sen said. “I’m very comfortable with how our school has been handling itself.”

Sen is not opposed to NIH funding cuts but said he would want them to be strategic. As a solution, Sen said he thinks the government should consult with researchers with decades of experience, like himself.

“Bring them to the table. Ask them, ‘Hey, where do you see the opportunity?’” Sen said.

JoAnne Flynn, a distinguished professor of microbiology and molecular genetics in the School of Medicine, receives funding from NIH to research tuberculosis vaccines. Flynn’s department has not made cuts to people or research but is instead working to cut catering costs, reduce space and try to keep the budget as limited as possible. 

Flyyn’s major concern about NIH funding cuts is the inability to plan ahead for research projects. Because grant funding is being administered relatively slowly, Flynn is unsure which proposals will be accepted and which will be slashed. 

“Projects are often five years, and if something stops in the middle, then you basically wasted all the money,” Flynn said. 

Ann Cohen, associate professor of psychiatry at Pitt Med school and the director of the neuroimaging core of the Pitt Alzheimer’s disease research center, receives NIH funding to research risk and resilience to Alzheimer’s disease pathology. 

Cohen said the funding for Alzheimer’s disease research ran out on Feb. 28 and is currently operating on a third of the normal budget. The center has decreased the use of blood biomarkers due to a lack of funding for kits and reagents and paused PET imaging for all patients and participants. 

Cohen said her department chair has advised researchers to continue to focus on their work without panic.

“With donation funds and some institutional funds, we’ve been able to keep all of our staff and that has really been our focus,” Cohen said.

Cohen’s department has contingency plans in place if there’s a sudden drastic cut to funding, which she does not know the specifics of. 

As for the University’s role, Cohen said she thinks it’s reasonable for them to remain quiet publicly during the current “chaos” because they also depend on funding and support from other sources, such as the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education.

“I think that, administratively, it becomes a much harder calculus with so many things to consider,” Cohen said. “In a perfect world, I’d love to see every university actively pushing back and fighting for our freedom to do science, but obviously we live in a world with much more nuance.”

A major concern for Cohen is graduate research students, who have always had the opportunity to branch out into the private sector to work for companies such as Google and Uber. Yet now, this opportunity is more attractive given the circumstances.

“Now we’re in a situation where people who would probably have stayed in academic research are gonna be making other decisions because of the uncertainty,” Cohen said.

Sen said a graduate student, who applied this year, asked him if he should give up and apply to a company. Over the past two months, Sen has heard similar sentiments amongst colleagues and graduate students about quitting academia and moving to another industry or country. 

“Do you think you’re going to say ‘I will still do this no matter how many doors shut in my face’? No, you’re going to turn away and say, ‘you know what, let me do something else,’” Sen said.

Sen also voiced particular concern over younger researchers who are scared to continue in the field, which poses a risk for the progression of his research.

“If I am doing what I’m doing, and there is no tomorrow, no continuity — then why am I doing this?” Sen asked.

With the research funding process being interrupted, Sen said he is concerned that important employees who are laid off due to funding cuts will permanently find work elsewhere. 

“Once they’re gone, they’re gone,” Sen said. “True talent is not beholden to any single government.”