Letter to the Editor | Research is under attack

Auburn’s basketball team recently concluded a brilliant season. For only the second time ever, they advanced to the NCAA Final Four. Now imagine that those in charge of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) funding for AU basketball players and for Coach Pearl’s contract announced that they were freezing some of the funding and initiating deep cuts in the funding going forward. When asked why, their response is that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in Coach Pearl’s contract and in NIL funding for the players. When asked for data to prove this contention, none was given.

The above is a nonsensical situation that will of course not happen. Unfortunately, there is a very real and more important situation that is actually happening right now. Research by American universities is ranked #1 in the world, and is the envy of the entire world. This unmatched reputation includes our very own Auburn University and the research that its faculty members perform. In the face of this #1 ranking, the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are attempting to freeze large amounts of federal research funding to universities (including Auburn University), and are promising ongoing cuts to research funding. The reason: waste, fraud, and abuse. Supporting data: there are none.

One specific example of cuts to university funding is a decision by Trump, Musk, and DOGE to reduce what are called “indirect costs” for federal grants to universities. Let’s say that an AU faculty member receives a federal grant in the amount of $100,000. This $100,000 is called “direct costs”. These costs pay for expenses directly related to the specific project or activity. Accompanying this $100,000 in direct costs for the principal investigator (faculty member), Auburn University will automatically receive approximately $53,000 in indirect costs.

On February 7th of this year, Elon Musk posted on X: “Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’? What a ripoff!” There was then an announcement that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was lowering the maximum indirect cost rate to 15% immediately. For AU, this would be a cut of more than 70% in the indirect cost rate.

Are indirect costs really a ripoff of the federal government? Indirect costs are provided to institutions to cover expenses that are not directly tied to specific research projects but are necessary to allow the projects to be accomplished. Examples of indirect costs include funding to purchase and maintain equipment, laboratories, specialized facilities for services such as imaging and gene analysis, hazardous waste disposal, support for compliance with regulations (e.g., animal housing, human subjects), high speed computing, data storage and information technology, data/cyber security, utilities, patient and personnel safety, administrative salaries, accounting, legal services, general office supplies/equipment, maintenance staff to clean and supply labs and facilities, etc. More broadly, the indirect costs can be viewed as overall support for the research enterprise writ large at our universities, ensuring that scientists have the necessary resources to conduct their work of discovery that benefits all of us.

So, do we really think that AU is wasting and abusing its indirect costs, and conducting fraudulent activities with that funding? Again, these are cuts applied to the unparalleled, #1 ranked research institutions in the entire world, without evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse. Aside from the numerous specific research projects these actions will impede (many of them critical for addressing health and diseases), is it reasonable to imperil our world leadership in discovery and innovation? Why would we hand over our advantage to China and other competitors merely by our own self-affliction?

If anyone remains unconvinced about the importance of these dire cuts to research, it’s important to note that among all the Trump administration policies, the most concerning to many economists are these cuts to federal support for scientific research. In the view of economists and scientists alike, this action is shortsighted and has the real potential to undermine our competitiveness in artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge fields, and make our citizens poorer, less healthy, and less productive for many years to come.

Regardless of one’s political affiliations, leading the world in research is good for everyone. My request to Auburn students is to learn about the research going on at Auburn and other universities, what indirect costs are used for, and then to educate their families and friends so that we can turn our leaders away from the dangerous direction we are heading with our precious world-leading research.

Cheering for Auburn sports is fun, but protecting our research, teaching and outreach is more important. So, please become informed and become involved; our world leadership in research is central to your education right now, and to the world you will live in for years to come.