The Trump administration has launched an unprecedented attack on science by targeting research activities at many leading universities. I was on the frontlines at Harvard when the first missiles fell. As Founding Director of the Wyss Institute, I received stop-work orders on three government contracts within five hours after Harvard rejected the administration's unprecedented demands for ideological control of the university on April 14. I am the principal investigator on two Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) contracts, totaling nearly $20 million, that were stopped. One project focused on leveraging human organ chip technology to develop novel radiation countermeasure drugs. In the other project, we intended to employ these chips to investigate the effects of microgravity by lining them with cells from astronauts participating in the upcoming ARTEMIS II lunar mission and flying the chips alongside them. David Walt, a recent recipient of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation from President Biden, is the principal investigator on the third contract from NIH that was also stopped midstream. He was developing a groundbreaking approach to detect Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases using just a drop of blood. Now, this potentially life-changing technology will not move forward—a major loss for patients and their families.
This initial damage was significant, but we at Harvard have experienced repeated strikes in the weeks that followed. Two weeks ago, the NIH, NSF, DoD, and other government funding agencies terminated their grants to Harvard. This week, the US General Services Administration notified the universities that all government contracts with Harvard will end immediately. This wave of attacks has resulted in the cessation of research on disease mechanisms, abrupt cancellation of ongoing clinical studies, compromise of clinical data repositories, and potentially meaningless euthanasia of multiple non-human primates. These actions were accompanied by proposals to reduce indirect cost reimbursement to 15 percent, which would cover only a fraction of the costs of doing business in science today, and to tax university endowments as much as 21 percent.
Trump's attack on science has been a Blitzkrieg—a lightning war with its speed, surprise, and concentrated firepower—and the casualties have been great. Recently, the administration revoked Harvard's ability to enroll international students. Subjecting scientists who pledged their lives to help others by pursuing science at Harvard to such psychological cruelty, just because they hail from other countries, is appalling. One day, they are diligently working at the bench; the next day, they are gripped by the fear of being forcibly removed from their homes and losing their livelihoods. A judge intervened to pause the turmoil temporarily, but these researchers now grapple with the agonizing choice between pivoting their career to pursue an entirely new path or leaving the country permanently. Either way, science in America will be set back by a generation.
And what is the reason for this all-out war on Harvard? The government's message to us has been clear: Our scientists and engineers are being held hostage because Harvard is refusing to rid the university of antisemitism. But is Harvard actively fostering antisemitism and actively refusing to respond to these problems? Well, let's look at the data. There were a series of distressing antisemitic actions taken by some Harvard students immediately following Israel's military response to the attack by Hamas in October 2023. Consequently, a lawsuit was filed in January 2024, followed by the resignation of Harvard's President Claudine Gay. Alan Garber, who was formally appointed as President last year, has made many changes to quell antisemitism at the university. These include strengthening rules governing protests and disciplinary action, working with Harvard's schools to suspend programs that had been accused of bias, initiating efforts to support the sense of belonging for Jewish students, and creating mechanisms for anonymous reporting of bias incidents. Harvard policies now clearly prohibit targeting of Zionists. The university has reprimanded faculty and students who did not follow these new rules, and Garber has stated that he is committed to doing more to combat this problem over time. Jewish students at Harvard now say that they no longer feel antisemitism much in their daily lives and that they are more concerned about how Trump's attack on universities will affect their future.
The reality is that scientific research and the development of new diagnostics and therapeutics have nothing to do with antisemitism. At first, I thought that we scientists were just innocent bystanders, and that the government is using its control over research funding as a strategic tool to silence dissent—something that students have voiced on campuses for as long as universities have existed. While this is true, I now also believe that the administration's target is the truth itself.
Scientists are likely perceived as the enemy because we support critical thinking and evidence-based decision making. As we watch the Department of Health and Human Services remove scientific experts and propose to make all NIH Institute and Center Directors who oversee grant-making political appointees, we see the power of science to better human lives and protect the health of our planet crumble before our eyes. From this analysis and the detailed demands for control over university operations laid out in the Trump Administration's letter to Harvard that triggered this war, it is clear that this is all about ideological control and the end of academic freedom. As stated by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on Fox News, "This should be a warning to all universities to get your act together." And so, if Harvard falls, all universities will lose their independence.
Are we powerless or is there something we can do to prevent this free fall? First, every scientist whose research can improve outcomes for a specific disease or disorder should reach out to patient advocates in their area and beg them for help. If patients raise their voices loudly enough, they will be heard. We also need to reach out to the CEOs of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who would have no products and future, if American science is thrown by the wayside. They too need to speak out on behalf of the decades-long government-university partnership that has made American science the powerhouse and supreme example of success that it is today. We scientists need to talk to the press and communicate why the work we do is important for the health of everyone's husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and children and grandchildren.
But for those who cannot appreciate the science for itself, tell them how the economy will slow to a crawl if America does not continue to innovate and develop breakthrough technologies. Explain how those technologies will never be birthed without vibrant universities and research hospitals that carry out this ground-breaking research, which is not possible without government support. Let them know that Trump's proposed cuts to NIH and NSF alone have been estimated to cost the US economy $10 billion annually. This drop in science funding would cause our nation's gross domestic product (GDP) to drop by about four percent, which will hit the average taxpayer in their pocketbooks, resulting in a loss of about $10,000 each.
This government is executing similar attacks on all parts of our society—intermittent tariffs, reversal of climate change policies, building nuclear reactors on government land, and ending funding for the Arts. And these are just a few examples. Because they are attacking on so many fronts at once, everyone is having to focus on protecting their own turf. Thus, our survival as working scientists is in our own hands. Do what you can to make your voice heard and our actions will multiply; it is our only hope.
