Scientists Scramble To Keep Funding

If not for the generosity of the United States government, Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences Isaac F. Silvera would probably not be doing research today.

"I am close to 100 percent dependent on federal funding," says Silvera, who investigates high-pressure and low temperature situations for use in military applications. "We have very little other resources, very little from Harvard for research."

Silvera's research is funded by the Department of Energy, the United States Air Force and the National Science Foundation (NSF). But the government has lately become a less generous benefactor, Silvera says.

"My grants are down--the stable grants are down 20 percent from several years ago," he says. "But the costs of conducting research are up 30 percent or more in the past few years. Basically we've got grants decreasing and rising costs."

Because of the loss of funds--which are hard to obtain from other sources--Silvera says his research has suffered.

"You spend more time looking for funding and less doing research," he says. "You cut back on the number of graduate students you support."

Silvera says researchers in all areas of the sciences are feeling the combined effects of stagnant or shrinking grants and increased research costs.

"It's been happening to other people already," he says. "I'm not a special case at all."

Budget Cutting

Situations like Silvera's may become even more prevalent as a result of budget-cutting pressures in Congress.

Since the Republicans gained control of Congress last November, promising a balanced budget and decreasedtaxes, observers have speculated that Congresswill cut money allocated for science researchfunding.

Congressional leaders have maintained that allprograms, except for Medicare and Social Security,may face decreases in funding.

"Everything is on the table," says MelissaSabatine, a spokesperson for the House ScienceCommittee.

The Science Committee recommends to the BudgetCommittee the total level of federal spending onscience research each year.

Although Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), thecommittee's chair, is a strong supporter of basicscience research. He also advocates cutting thebudget deficit, Sabatine says.

"We have budget realities and budgetpriorities," she says.

Among fiscally conservative Republicans, Walkeris not alone in supporting science research. Rep.John E. Porter (R-III.) also has a prominent rolein determining the level of science researchfunding, as he chairs the Appropriationssubcommittee that determines the level of fundingfor the National Institute of Health (NIH), whichprovides 60 percent of Harvard's federal researchgrants.

Porter is actually pushing for more NIH fundingthan the $11.8 billion proposed in PresidentClinton's budget, says David Kohn, his presssecretary.

"Representative Porter feels four percent isnot a big enough increase," says Kohn. "He thinksbiomedical research has been shortchanged and thatit's important for our country's ability to keepitself at the forefront in research."

Kohn says the federal government can increasespending on research and simultaneously work tobalance the budget, which may require $350 billionin cuts over five years.

"If you're concerned about health care costsgoing out of control, you have to be concernedabout funding biomedical research," Kohn says.

Some of the toughest budget cutting talk iscoming from Democratic representatives.

"We need to put everything through amicroscope," says John Deeken, spokesperson forRep. David R. Obey (D-WI), the ranking Democrat onAppropriations.

Potential cuts to science funding make facultyand administrators at Harvard, the recipient infiscal year 1994 of over $235 million in federalresearch funds, nervous about the future ofresearch at Harvard.

"It's going to be an unpredictable year," saysJames H. Rowe III '73, Harvard's vice presidentfor government, community and public affairs.

Professors are also left guessing what willhappen to scarce science funding.

"The horizon is dim, and there will becontinuing reductions," says Higgins Professor ofPhysics Sheldon L. Glashow, who received a NobelPrize in 1979.

But Rowe says not all signs are pointing tocuts in science funding. Clinton's proposed 1996budget includes increases in money earmarked forscientific research.

"The Clinton administration has come out with aquite positive budget for research funding thatrecognizes the importance and validity of researchfunding," Rowe says. "That could well be the highwater mark of what we end up with."

And science research funding remained intact inthe rescissions bills proposed by the House ofRepresentatives, says Kevin Casey, Harvard'sdirector of federal and state affairs.

"Generally, the rescissions show that researchis held in fairly high regard," Casey says. "Theydid not really touch the NSF." A rescissionmeasure involves cutting funds already earmarkedin a budget.

Hearings before the House AppropriationsCommittee on whether to cut NIH funding in 1996begin next week, says Donald M. Ralbovsky, aspokesperson for the organization.

"Our feeling is that the work which is donehere in Bethesda and which is done in the grantinginstitutions speaks for itself," says Ralbovsky."However, as is the case with any Congressionalhearing, the Congressmen and Senators have theirquestions."

The Effects of Cuts

The more than $235 million in federallysponsored research awarded to Harvard last year ismore than double the amount of research fundingfrom foundations, corporations and other sourcescombined, according to a fact book published bythe Office of Budgets.

This total is more than the $201.6 million ofusable income generated by Harvard's $5.8 billionendowment last year.

A significant cut in funding might be difficultto absorb and would likely lead to a reduction inthe amount of research conducted, Glashow says.

"It means that we'll be able to train fewergraduate students, and that's bad news," he says.

Glashow says the NSF has already informedHarvard that it will cut money for theoreticalphysics research.

"The NSF is strapped for funds. It's cuttingback everywhere. Grants are being cut left andright everywhere," he says.

"Our cut for the next year is among thesmallest. The money is in short supply forresearch," he adds.

And Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics HowardGeorgi, who administers the NSF grant to whichGlashow refers, says Harvard will receive 10percent less than it requested.

"We've had to make some significant cuts," saysGeorgi. "We'll have to do without someadministrative personnel."

If more cuts come, graduate students may feelthe biggest hit, says Paul C. Martin '52, dean ofthe Division of Applied Sciences.

"We'd do what we can to support the gradstudents who are here, maybe by using them more asteaching fellows," he says. "But undoubtedly itwould lead to a reduction in the number we'dadmit."

More importantly, thesis anddissertation research are often supported almostentirely by federal grants, says Baird Professorof Science Gary J. Feldman.

"You just can't keep the levels of programs upin decreasing budgets, and that's hurtingscience," he says.

But if cuts are deep, the effects would extendbeyond graduate students, says Martin.

"Research is symbiotic with the entireeducational program at Harvard," says Martin."Education would suffer if research was cut back.Research is an important part of what attracts thetop students."

Immediate, steep cuts could signify the end ofmajor projects, Casey says.

"I think the most important thing for HarvardUniversity is not to have large, immediate,arbitrary disruptions of major programs," he says."In that situation it shuts down entire programs."

Harvard's ability to respond to a funding cutdepends on the speed of the reductions, Long says.Bills passed by this session of Congress wouldaffect next year's budget.

"There's a substantial lag time," Long says."It might be a few years down the road before wesaw an effect of an action of this Congress."

The immediate impact of a cut in funds "wouldbe on new awards," not on existing awards, saysPatricia B. Tucker, director of awards managementand resource information at the Office ofSponsored Research.

Most awards are granted for three to five yearsat a time, Long says. Existing awards, therefore,would be protected temporarily.

"They can honor what they've already promisedus," he says.

But awards often come up for funding review ona yearly basis, says Georgi, and so even existingawards would not be completely immune.

"We get scientific approval for five years buthave to submit a budget for each year," saysGeorgi, who was recently told to expect a fundingcut in his NSF grant.

Harvard's Reputation

If federal research funding is cut, Harvard'sreputation for doing solid research may helpdampen the blow, several professors say.

Its reputation may allow Harvard to retain itsfunding better than smaller institutions can, saysAlan K. Long, director of the laboratories of thedepartments of chemistry and earth and planetarysciences.

"If funding gets cut, it's not likely thatHarvard would be the first to get the axe becauseit's such a prominent research institution," saysLong. "The reason we get a lot of money is we havea proven track record of doing worthwhileresearch.

"That's our hope--that our reputation willsupport us," Long adds.

But name recognition alone will not saveHarvard from budget reductions. Researchers mustcontinuously perform solid research to maintainfunding.

"It may appear that Harvard may not be cut asmuch," Feldman says.

"But that's because better quality research isbeing done."

Indeed, even if Harvard's researchers continue to outperform their colleagues, funding may be pinched, Glashow says.

"Harvard will continue to do very well incomparison to other universities, but it willstill hurt a lot," says Glashow.

But Ralbovsky says university reputation is notthe prime consideration in the grants process.

"The view is that the quality of the science isthe factor," he says.

Few Alternatives

Scientists will have few alternatives iffederal funding declines, Silvera says.

"I haven't seen any replacement for federalfunding," he says.

Corporations, which once served as the enginefor technological research, are now reducing theirresearch role to cut costs, Martin says.

"Industry can't pick up the slack if governmentfunding drops," he says.

Martin attributes part of this decrease inindustry funding to the fact that companies canfreely obtain the results of competitors' researchefforts.

"Research with a 10 year time frame is beingdone less and less in industry because companiesno longer see it as profitable," Martin says.

But Ralbovsky says many corporations andfoundations still provide large sums of money toresearchers.

"There are many, thank God, privateinstitutions and private sector entities wherefunding always has been available and continues tobe used," he says.

The Lobby

Because federal funding helps to sustain manydepartments and programs at Harvard, Rowe says theUniversity is working hard to lobby governmentofficials not to cut money earmarked for scienceresearch efforts.

"My colleagues here and colleagues at otherinstitutions are doing double time to meet electedofficials and critical staff," Rowe says. "I thinkwe have to do a better job communicating what itis that research represents to society today."

Rowe says Harvard will succeed in its lobbyingefforts by discussing the value of scienceresearch in general rather than by dwelling on theimportance of federal money to the University'sbudget.

"That's a harder issue to get across thansomething more definable like student aid," hesays.

Casey says he travels frequently to WashingtonD.C. to join with other University lobbyists inarguing against decreases in research funding.

"There are a number of networks out there thatwe're making a better effort to coordinate with,"Casey says.

Although the Congressional power base hasshifted, officials and staff members still careabout researchrelated issues, Casey says.

"In a difficult period, the Congress holdsresearch in a pretty high regard," Casey says.

"They have professional staff who care and knowa lot about the programs. They give you a realitycheck. They give you the context you're workingin," he says.

University President Neil L. Rudenstine andProvost Albert Carnesale will also meet frequentlywith Senators and Representatives on issues facingthe University, Rowe says.

"President Rudenstine and Provost Carnesale aregong to be a very good one-two punch on studentaid and research funding issues," Rowe says.

While talk of cuts in research funding ismerely "speculative" at this point, Rowe saysimpact of research cuts is so great that Harvardofficials must work as hard as it can to preventthe funding cuts.

"I don't think it's too early to be worryingabout it," he says. "I think we have a verycompelling message."CrimsonBen C. CholHarvard University Expenditures UnderFederal Prime Sponsored Projects Source:Harvard University

Congressional leaders have maintained that allprograms, except for Medicare and Social Security,may face decreases in funding.

"Everything is on the table," says MelissaSabatine, a spokesperson for the House ScienceCommittee.

The Science Committee recommends to the BudgetCommittee the total level of federal spending onscience research each year.

Although Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), thecommittee's chair, is a strong supporter of basicscience research. He also advocates cutting thebudget deficit, Sabatine says.

"We have budget realities and budgetpriorities," she says.

Among fiscally conservative Republicans, Walkeris not alone in supporting science research. Rep.John E. Porter (R-III.) also has a prominent rolein determining the level of science researchfunding, as he chairs the Appropriationssubcommittee that determines the level of fundingfor the National Institute of Health (NIH), whichprovides 60 percent of Harvard's federal researchgrants.

Porter is actually pushing for more NIH fundingthan the $11.8 billion proposed in PresidentClinton's budget, says David Kohn, his presssecretary.

"Representative Porter feels four percent isnot a big enough increase," says Kohn. "He thinksbiomedical research has been shortchanged and thatit's important for our country's ability to keepitself at the forefront in research."

Kohn says the federal government can increasespending on research and simultaneously work tobalance the budget, which may require $350 billionin cuts over five years.

"If you're concerned about health care costsgoing out of control, you have to be concernedabout funding biomedical research," Kohn says.

Some of the toughest budget cutting talk iscoming from Democratic representatives.

"We need to put everything through amicroscope," says John Deeken, spokesperson forRep. David R. Obey (D-WI), the ranking Democrat onAppropriations.

Potential cuts to science funding make facultyand administrators at Harvard, the recipient infiscal year 1994 of over $235 million in federalresearch funds, nervous about the future ofresearch at Harvard.

"It's going to be an unpredictable year," saysJames H. Rowe III '73, Harvard's vice presidentfor government, community and public affairs.

Professors are also left guessing what willhappen to scarce science funding.

"The horizon is dim, and there will becontinuing reductions," says Higgins Professor ofPhysics Sheldon L. Glashow, who received a NobelPrize in 1979.

But Rowe says not all signs are pointing tocuts in science funding. Clinton's proposed 1996budget includes increases in money earmarked forscientific research.

"The Clinton administration has come out with aquite positive budget for research funding thatrecognizes the importance and validity of researchfunding," Rowe says. "That could well be the highwater mark of what we end up with."

And science research funding remained intact inthe rescissions bills proposed by the House ofRepresentatives, says Kevin Casey, Harvard'sdirector of federal and state affairs.

"Generally, the rescissions show that researchis held in fairly high regard," Casey says. "Theydid not really touch the NSF." A rescissionmeasure involves cutting funds already earmarkedin a budget.

Hearings before the House AppropriationsCommittee on whether to cut NIH funding in 1996begin next week, says Donald M. Ralbovsky, aspokesperson for the organization.

"Our feeling is that the work which is donehere in Bethesda and which is done in the grantinginstitutions speaks for itself," says Ralbovsky."However, as is the case with any Congressionalhearing, the Congressmen and Senators have theirquestions."

The Effects of Cuts

The more than $235 million in federallysponsored research awarded to Harvard last year ismore than double the amount of research fundingfrom foundations, corporations and other sourcescombined, according to a fact book published bythe Office of Budgets.

This total is more than the $201.6 million ofusable income generated by Harvard's $5.8 billionendowment last year.

A significant cut in funding might be difficultto absorb and would likely lead to a reduction inthe amount of research conducted, Glashow says.

"It means that we'll be able to train fewergraduate students, and that's bad news," he says.

Glashow says the NSF has already informedHarvard that it will cut money for theoreticalphysics research.

"The NSF is strapped for funds. It's cuttingback everywhere. Grants are being cut left andright everywhere," he says.

"Our cut for the next year is among thesmallest. The money is in short supply forresearch," he adds.

And Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics HowardGeorgi, who administers the NSF grant to whichGlashow refers, says Harvard will receive 10percent less than it requested.

"We've had to make some significant cuts," saysGeorgi. "We'll have to do without someadministrative personnel."

If more cuts come, graduate students may feelthe biggest hit, says Paul C. Martin '52, dean ofthe Division of Applied Sciences.

"We'd do what we can to support the gradstudents who are here, maybe by using them more asteaching fellows," he says. "But undoubtedly itwould lead to a reduction in the number we'dadmit."

More importantly, thesis anddissertation research are often supported almostentirely by federal grants, says Baird Professorof Science Gary J. Feldman.

"You just can't keep the levels of programs upin decreasing budgets, and that's hurtingscience," he says.

But if cuts are deep, the effects would extendbeyond graduate students, says Martin.

"Research is symbiotic with the entireeducational program at Harvard," says Martin."Education would suffer if research was cut back.Research is an important part of what attracts thetop students."

Immediate, steep cuts could signify the end ofmajor projects, Casey says.

"I think the most important thing for HarvardUniversity is not to have large, immediate,arbitrary disruptions of major programs," he says."In that situation it shuts down entire programs."

Harvard's ability to respond to a funding cutdepends on the speed of the reductions, Long says.Bills passed by this session of Congress wouldaffect next year's budget.

"There's a substantial lag time," Long says."It might be a few years down the road before wesaw an effect of an action of this Congress."

The immediate impact of a cut in funds "wouldbe on new awards," not on existing awards, saysPatricia B. Tucker, director of awards managementand resource information at the Office ofSponsored Research.

Most awards are granted for three to five yearsat a time, Long says. Existing awards, therefore,would be protected temporarily.

"They can honor what they've already promisedus," he says.

But awards often come up for funding review ona yearly basis, says Georgi, and so even existingawards would not be completely immune.

"We get scientific approval for five years buthave to submit a budget for each year," saysGeorgi, who was recently told to expect a fundingcut in his NSF grant.

Harvard's Reputation

If federal research funding is cut, Harvard'sreputation for doing solid research may helpdampen the blow, several professors say.

Its reputation may allow Harvard to retain itsfunding better than smaller institutions can, saysAlan K. Long, director of the laboratories of thedepartments of chemistry and earth and planetarysciences.

"If funding gets cut, it's not likely thatHarvard would be the first to get the axe becauseit's such a prominent research institution," saysLong. "The reason we get a lot of money is we havea proven track record of doing worthwhileresearch.

"That's our hope--that our reputation willsupport us," Long adds.

But name recognition alone will not saveHarvard from budget reductions. Researchers mustcontinuously perform solid research to maintainfunding.

"It may appear that Harvard may not be cut asmuch," Feldman says.

"But that's because better quality research isbeing done."

Indeed, even if Harvard's researchers continue to outperform their colleagues, funding may be pinched, Glashow says.

"Harvard will continue to do very well incomparison to other universities, but it willstill hurt a lot," says Glashow.

But Ralbovsky says university reputation is notthe prime consideration in the grants process.

"The view is that the quality of the science isthe factor," he says.

Few Alternatives

Scientists will have few alternatives iffederal funding declines, Silvera says.

"I haven't seen any replacement for federalfunding," he says.

Corporations, which once served as the enginefor technological research, are now reducing theirresearch role to cut costs, Martin says.

"Industry can't pick up the slack if governmentfunding drops," he says.

Martin attributes part of this decrease inindustry funding to the fact that companies canfreely obtain the results of competitors' researchefforts.

"Research with a 10 year time frame is beingdone less and less in industry because companiesno longer see it as profitable," Martin says.

But Ralbovsky says many corporations andfoundations still provide large sums of money toresearchers.

"There are many, thank God, privateinstitutions and private sector entities wherefunding always has been available and continues tobe used," he says.

The Lobby

Because federal funding helps to sustain manydepartments and programs at Harvard, Rowe says theUniversity is working hard to lobby governmentofficials not to cut money earmarked for scienceresearch efforts.

"My colleagues here and colleagues at otherinstitutions are doing double time to meet electedofficials and critical staff," Rowe says. "I thinkwe have to do a better job communicating what itis that research represents to society today."

Rowe says Harvard will succeed in its lobbyingefforts by discussing the value of scienceresearch in general rather than by dwelling on theimportance of federal money to the University'sbudget.

"That's a harder issue to get across thansomething more definable like student aid," hesays.

Casey says he travels frequently to WashingtonD.C. to join with other University lobbyists inarguing against decreases in research funding.

"There are a number of networks out there thatwe're making a better effort to coordinate with,"Casey says.

Although the Congressional power base hasshifted, officials and staff members still careabout researchrelated issues, Casey says.

"In a difficult period, the Congress holdsresearch in a pretty high regard," Casey says.

"They have professional staff who care and knowa lot about the programs. They give you a realitycheck. They give you the context you're workingin," he says.

University President Neil L. Rudenstine andProvost Albert Carnesale will also meet frequentlywith Senators and Representatives on issues facingthe University, Rowe says.

"President Rudenstine and Provost Carnesale aregong to be a very good one-two punch on studentaid and research funding issues," Rowe says.

While talk of cuts in research funding ismerely "speculative" at this point, Rowe saysimpact of research cuts is so great that Harvardofficials must work as hard as it can to preventthe funding cuts.

"I don't think it's too early to be worryingabout it," he says. "I think we have a verycompelling message."CrimsonBen C. CholHarvard University Expenditures UnderFederal Prime Sponsored Projects Source:Harvard University