Pitt researchers continue to express uncertainty about the future of science with the impacts of federal funding cuts on research in the past year.
Amid a recent University agreement to maintain its ancillary research reimbursement rate of 59%, researchers across Pennsylvania held an advocacy event to bring attention to the effects of cuts in the past year.
On Nov. 7, 2025, university researchers and unions across Pennsylvania gathered at all seven of Senator Dave McCormick’s state offices to urge him to ensure student aid and research funding were protected in the federal budget.
Ahead of the new fiscal year, the federal budget and funding allocations were under negotiation, spurring researchers to highlight the effects of funding cuts on science so far. Locally, around three dozen researchers and union members assembled outside of McCormick’s office in Pittsburgh and spoke about their research and the impacts of funding cuts on their work.
Pitt and the Department of Health and Human Services reached an agreement in September to maintain the University’s ancillary research reimbursement rate at 59% through 2029.
“This is certainly good news for the University, but it does not prevent the government from making downward adjustments or changes to how indirect cost recovery works in the future,” University spokesperson Jared Stonesifer said.
Tyler Bickford, an English professor and unit president of the University of Pittsburgh Faculty Union, said the event was held to advocate for a continuation of federal funding and spread awareness of the risks cuts pose.
“We think there are real risks of cuts to life-saving research and also aid to students that ensures higher education is affordable,” Bickford said.
Bickford highlighted the importance of university research, particularly its provision of Pennsylvania jobs and student educational opportunities.
“Federal funding is a key part of that ecosystem,” Bickford said. “We want to make sure that our senator was hearing from his constituents and understanding how important these issues are.”
Will Evans, an associate professor of communication sciences and disorders, is studying aphasia rehabilitation. Evans spoke at the advocacy event about his research and the tangible impacts of federal funding cuts on work like his.
“Just imagine one day, all at once, you lose the ability to communicate to the people you care about. That’s what millions of people [with aphasia] living in the U.S. are up against,” Evans said. “This is just one example of the value of research for society.”
Evans emphasized the importance of advocacy events in ensuring the public understands the threat that cuts pose to diminishing the ability to find solutions for diseases.
“I think [the event] was thoughtful, respectful and really encouraging that faculty from different universities and areas are coming together from different unions to talk about how important what we do is,” Evans said. “We’re trying to change lives, and we need to do a better job of talking about the impact of what we do.”
Research support has been bipartisan both currently and historically, according to Jeremy Berg, professor of computational and systems biology in the School of Medicine and former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Berg studies molecular biophysics and the analysis of clinical trials.
“Both Republicans and Democrats have academic institutions in their states, and they recognize how important federal funding is to their constituents and economies in their areas and to health, innovation and advancement,” Berg said.
Berg highlighted the success of the model of partnership between federal government funding and university research. The model, which dates back to the late 1940s, was designed so federal funding would be provided to universities for any important research, and then such information would be available to the government or private sectors when needed.
“This model of partnership has been tremendously productive and is one of the reasons why the United States has been the dominant player in science,” Berg said. “It’s been responsible for many, many millions of jobs and probably trillions of dollars in economic output.”
However, Berg noted that this partnership depended on “a huge amount of trust” between the government and higher educational institutions.
“In the last 10 months, grants were terminated for pretty arbitrary political reasons by processes that were illegal, and the indirect cost rate was changed as well, which led to a lot of uncertainty and distrust now,” Berg said.
Berg said universities are unable to plan ahead on research focuses due to funding uncertainty, increasing inefficiency in scientific advancement.
“Everything is colored with uncertainty now. Trust is something that takes a long time to build, but is pretty easy to destroy and hard to get back,” Berg said.
According to Sarah Ross, a professor of neurobiology who studies the neural circuit basis for pain, funding cuts are greatly impacting the progress of the next generation of scientists.
“Science is an extremely long training period, and even with just a few years without funding, graduate students and postdocs can’t find positions to support them in that long process,” Ross said. “There’s a whole generation of scientists that are in jeopardy of being lost.”
Ross also said the federal government seemed to be “scaring away international [research] applicants” by making it difficult for international students to come to the U.S., further harming the future of research.
“What the U.S. has traditionally done is to attract the best and brightest to the United States. They train, make discoveries and start businesses here, and that’s what made the U.S. one of the top countries in the world for innovation and discovery,” Ross said. “The Trump Administration is doing the very opposite by scaring away top talent.”
Ross expressed that many existing and prospective scientists felt frightened and uncertain about the future of science and research.
“It’s discouraging that the Trump Administration has been unsupportive of science,” Ross said. “In the guise of saving money, they are making cuts that are really hurting science and innovation.”
Ross said the U.S. runs the risk of being overtaken by other countries in many research domains by cutting funding nationally.
“In the long term, instead of being a world leader, I think we’ve already lost our leadership position, and this will take decades to rebuild, if it’s even possible,” Ross said.