The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a major funding reduction policy that could have widespread repercussions for research institutions across the United States. With a proposal to slash indirect costs for NIH-funded projects, the policy threatens the research infrastructure at universities like Harvard, the University of Oklahoma, and others. The new changes, which are currently blocked by federal courts, could disrupt not only the progress of groundbreaking medical studies but also essential services like shared laboratories, equipment, and regulatory oversight.
The proposed 15% cap on indirect costs, effective from February 7, 2025, would limit the funding universities could use for overhead expenses. These overheads include essential research infrastructure such as office space, technology, and compliance services. Although the NIH claims this change will help reduce excessive spending, universities and researchers warn it could lead to significant disruptions in medical research. The new policy has already drawn widespread opposition, with several institutions and state governments filing lawsuits to halt its implementation.
NIH fund cut: The potential impact on Harvard
At Harvard University, the NIH provides over $488 million in grants, with more than $135 million allocated to indirect costs, suggest estimates. However, the proposed policy could severely limit this crucial funding, reducing the allowable indirect cost recovery from 69 cents to just 15 cents per dollar spent on research. According to a report from The Harvard Crimson, researchers are particularly concerned about the loss of essential resources that facilitate collaborative research and regulatory oversight. The Harvard Crimson quotes Joan S. Brugge, a professor at Harvard Medical School saying, “If the indirect costs are cut dramatically, we would still have salary for research staff and funding for supplies, but the University would have to cut services that are essential to carry out the research.”
The university’s research teams fear that shared facilities such as the Countway Library and specialized equipment, critical for innovative studies, may be affected. “We provide the equipment and the expertise for servicing research grants,” warned Richard M. Losick, a retired Harvard professor, reports The Harvard Crimson. He noted that the cuts could also threaten animal labs essential for medical research, which rely heavily on NIH funding.
In addition to equipment and lab space, the proposed cuts also jeopardize regulatory oversight bodies at Harvard. Indirect funding plays a key role in supporting compliance teams such as the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which ensures that research involving human subjects adheres to federal ethical standards. Jeremy M. Wolfe, a professor at Harvard Medical School, highlighted the serious consequences of dismantling this system. He stated, “If you start dismantling the system, it would become very difficult to apply for new grants that are required on a continuing basis to keep your work going,” as quoted by The Harvard Crimson.
What does this fund cut mean for the universities of Oklahoma?
The concern extends beyond Harvard, with other universities and research institutions across the nation fearing the ramifications of these cuts.
In Oklahoma, for instance, research universities like the University of Oklahoma (OU) and Oklahoma State University (OSU) stand to lose significant funding for their research projects. OU’s health science center alone received over $9.2 million in NIH grants for fiscal year 2025, with approximately $1.5 million allocated for indirect costs, reports The Oklahoman. These funds support a range of medical research, including cancer research, immune system protection, and rural health care expansion. However, should the NIH cuts go into effect, over $2.8 million in indirect costs allocated across 26 projects would be at risk.
For OSU, the situation is similarly dire. OSU is set to lose over $405,000 of its NIH funding, which currently supports research into viral transmission and lung diseases. In total, Oklahoma’s public universities expect to lose millions in NIH funding, and as stated by Angela Caddell, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma State Regents, the financial impact will be determined by the level of cuts to these vital programs.
Here’s a breakdown of the funding Oklahoma’s research universities could lose if the indirect cost caps go into effect:
As shown above, Oklahoma’s universities face a considerable reduction in research funds that could severely affect their ability to continue critical medical studies.
NIH cuts threaten medical research at US universities
The proposed cuts are not limited to Harvard and Oklahoma universities. Across the US, a wide range of institutions depend heavily on NIH funding for medical research. As reported by U.S. News & World Report, the University of California system received $2.6 billion in NIH funding in the last academic year. The University of Kentucky also faces significant threats from these cuts, with over $60 million in NIH funding potentially at risk. According to the university’s leadership, these reductions could severely impact ongoing research into heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and opioid use disorder.
For these institutions, the cuts could result in a decrease in medical research productivity and the training of future generations of scientists. The broader scientific community is already warning of the long-term effects of such reductions, which could slow down progress in areas like cancer research, Parkinson’s disease, and public health advancements.
The pushback and legal challenges
The backlash to the NIH cuts has been swift. A lawsuit filed by 22 states against the Trump administration, as reported by The Associated Press, argues that these cuts could lead to job losses, delayed clinical trials, and even lab closures. The US District Court in Massachusetts temporarily blocked the policy on February 10, 2025, and a nationwide pause has been ordered. Hearings are set for February 21, 2025, to determine the fate of the policy.
Despite the ongoing legal battles, the uncertainty surrounding future funding continues to cause chaos and confusion within the research community. Institutions are left grappling with how to navigate the policy’s implications while trying to maintain their status as global leaders in medical research.
