Ignorance and stigmatization defined the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s, contributing to the deaths of over 100,000 people, and leaving many more untreated or misdiagnosed. While medical experts warned of the crisis to both the public and Congress, the government chose to remain silent and restricted funding aimed at finding a cure. The disease was dubbed the “gay plague” and politicians were hesitant to advocate for funding research for a cure due to widespread homophobia. Because the disease was prominent among LGBTQ+, which many viewed as divine punishment for their sexual orientation, the government dragged their feet on potentially lifesaving AIDS research which could have saved countless lives. Former President Ronald Reagan cut budgets for both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health, which advocated for AIDS research, prioritizing ideology over scientific advancement. When scientific research is restricted on ideological grounds, its objective is endangered and lives can be lost.
Decades later, history is threatening to repeat itself. Since President Donald Trump’s return to office, he has imposed several unprecedented attacks on scientific research. This includes proposals to cut federal funding from organizations such as the NIH — a government agency that distributes grants to research institutions — and attempts to withhold grants for research projects mentioning words thought to be related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The U.S. government started funding universities to perform research during the Cold War so that the country could compete with the Soviet Union — a race of scientific and technological innovation that catapulted the nations into global superpowers. Through the allocation of research to individual institutions rather than the formation of a government agency, it allowed for a “free-market of ideas,” where competition between institutions drove greater expansion into different fields, unhindered by political goals.
In 2024, NYU received over $77 million from the NIH while the NYU Grossman School of Medicine received over $490 million. Together, they were awarded 611 awards last year for their breakthroughs in research — such as investigating the health effects of using cooking aerosols in a work-environment, determining the role of local government expenditures in promoting the ethnic disparities in firearm homicides, and working to uncover the early stomach microbiome-markers which could lead to asthma later in life. Without research funding, studies are halted and threaten developments like these.
NYU comes in 12th in national rankings of research spending, and first in the state of New York. Of the funds the university spends, 54% of it comes from the federal government, meaning NYU is particularly vulnerable to Trump’s executive orders that are threatening to cut funding to institutions that do not act in line with the beliefs of his administration.
The proposed budget cuts from the Trump administration state that there will be a 15% cap on the amount of NIH funding a school can receive for their overhead costs. Historically, the NIH and universities have split the cost of research by roughly 50%. This would mean critical cuts to NYU’s budget as the university is within the top 20 schools that receive NIH funding. When Trump was last in office, NYU received $200 million less annually in research funding, and now Trump’s funding freeze has already terminated two NYU research grants.
Already, universities have begun freezing positions, accepting few or no applications for the following year and giving out fewer grants to students in preparation. In light of these budget cuts, institutions will have a harder time maintaining their facilities and providing supplies to their students, and knowledgeable and qualified individuals will be denied spots that they otherwise would have gotten.
Research institutions would also find it difficult to turn to private investors in light of these budget cuts due to the unprofitability of basic research. Basic research is focused on continuing the study of known fields for the sake of expanding knowledge, rather than applied research aimed at solving a specific issue, which is often seen as more worthy of investment. Basic research, though not originally aimed at a specific goal, has often led to life-saving medical advancements. Without basic research being done in areas like human cell biology, electronics or radio waves, there would be no foundation for the development of profitable products in gene therapy or GPS systems.
Trump’s executive order cracking down on DEI measures has had a widespread impact on the scientific community, where officials at the National Science Foundation were instructed to review research grants that were flagged by an algorithm. The NSF created a list of words that warranted review, such as “women,” “BIPOC,” “activism,” “female,” “polarization” and “fostering inclusivity” being manually searched. Other government agencies, such as the CDC, have also been ordered to wipe their websites of these words. By withholding grants from research that include words targeting specific minority groups, medical advancements for these groups will stall, leading to a higher risk of persisting health concerns.
Science should be pioneered by open-mindedness and passion and not restricted to fit into a certain political agenda. The Trump administration’s ideologically driven, cost-cutting actions threaten the integrity of research and will stall improvements in medical needs and overall quality of life.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Serin Lee at [email protected].