Samantha Mundel ’25
In 2016, in a very rich Newton Public elementary school, I knew small tidbits about politics in the form of small jokes, impersonations, or just words that floated around. I had a faint knowledge of what ISIS was, and many of us would repeat the phrase “We’re gonna build a wall!” alongside repetitions of “What are those?!” and “What’s 9 +10? 21!”. I’ll never forget going down the stairs on an early November morning and seeing my mom crying because of the election results. Still, I fortunately didn’t really see any impact from the first Trump administration on my livelihood.
This recent election cycle was different. I am now much more interested in politics, with a range of political opinions in my family that I am constantly exposed to. I also turned 18 in time to vote, so I was able to participate in the government rather than just see things work out.
Recently, though, DOGE proposed and executed many budget cuts and evaluations of government programs and funding. One of the targets of these evaluations is the National Institute of Health (NIH), specifically decreasing the percentage of indirect costs paid for by the federal government. The Trump Administration’s policy changes to the NIH do not take into account the incredible importance of indirect costs or the huge losses that will be felt through the shrinking of the medical research community.
Indirect costs are anything that does not directly pertain to a specific research project and can include supplying buildings with heat and electricity, the cost of getting to a conference, and handling reimbursements, for example. In the past, this rate varied significantly between institutions, with an average indirect cost rate of 27% to 28%. Some organizations have a much higher indirect cost rate, occasionally over 50% or even 60%, according to a statement released by the NIH. The Trump Administration wants to cut this indirect cost rate to a strict 15% across all institutions. This is not only a severe cut to the average amount of money each institution receives, but it also does not take into account the various differences in each institution’s needs. Biomedical vs. engineering research, urban vs. rural areas, and more, can make a large difference in the amount of funding needed to cover indirect costs.
Unlike the last time Trump was in office, I am seeing real impacts of Trump’s policies in my personal life. My mom is particularly impacted by this new NIH policy. She works as a program coordinator at Boston Children’s Research, helping plan the schedules and allocate indirect cost money for some of their top researchers. Her job is nearly completely paid for through indirect costs. With this NIH policy in place, her job as an administrator at Boston Children’s Research was going to be evaluated until an MA federal judge blocked the order. Through an interview, I was able to learn more about my mom’s role in research and how this policy and the Trump administration in general are affecting her and her colleagues’ jobs.
My mom’s work almost entirely depends on indirect costs, as does the work of those she supports when they apply for grants. Indirect costs play a fundamental role in the management of research grants and help with the behind-the-scenes work that may seem less helpful but is just as important. Research grants that were recently approved, such as one on helping deter cancer at a genetic level, were under threat of getting some of their money to indirect costs taken away. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (2018) prohibits “deviations from negotiated rates” by the NIH, meaning that indirect cost rates already decided upon in the most recent negotiation for funding cannot be backtracked on.
Instead, the future of the medical research community worries my mom. “[This is] a huge blow to the medical research community… huge blow to humanity, because these people are curing cancers and childhood diseases…[some of these diseases] affect a very small percentage of people, but if your child had that thing you’d want them in this trial”. Although some of what they research may only affect a small portion of the population, is that reason enough that this work does not need to be done? Furthermore, Massachusetts, as a leader in scientific research and public health, relies heavily on its scientific innovation to support its economy. People come to Massachusetts just to study and research in these fields, and many companies have spawned out of our universities, such as the many biotech companies in Cambridge that came out of MIT. If funding to a fundamental part of research is cut, Massachusetts research and scientific innovation will be dwarfed, as will that of any state that relies on their research. This created another worry for my mom of the future of the community, that more people in STEM will decide not to go into research. Paraphrasing a colleague, she stated, “You can bet the people that are going to go and get their PhDs are gonna go… to private practice and not go into research because it’s too scary. You know, people don’t know if they’re going to have funding from one minute to the next, so for four years, we could lose people wanting to get into research… now you’ve lost four years of mentors… scientists… research.” Although any of Trump’s executive orders can be taken out after he leaves office in four years, he can certainly do lasting damage to this industry within that time. Furthermore, many people from foreign countries come to the U.S. on special visas to do research. These people are some of the best in the world when it comes to research and come to top universities like Harvard and MIT to do the research. Roughly half of one of the labs my mom works with is made up of these researchers. They are now unsure if they will be able to finish their research due to Trump’s vetting and review of all Visa programs.
In the last month that Trump has been in office, many of his executive orders have been blocked by a Massachusetts judge, including this one. My mom thinks this NIH case will likely be fought over for the next four years. All of these executive order blocks will likely be contested in court, echoing a larger question that Trump is posing: how much governmental power can he have?
What will affect us in Massachusetts, living in one of the bluest states in the U.S., whose policies and judicial system are currently at odds with the wants of the executive branch? What will get through, and what won’t? In only a month, Trump has tried and mostly been deterred on his way to figuring out what he can and can’t get away with. Only time will tell what the effects of these proposed sweeping changes will be.