In February, cuts in federal funding for research from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation sparked anxieties among USC researchers. Now, as students have had to experience the effects of these cuts for months, USC’s scientific community is still preparing for what comes next. 

Cesar Reyes, a fifth-year doctoral student pursuing a Ph.D. in chemistry, has already seen significant cuts to his research budget.

“I had applied for [a NIH] fellowship, [the] Advancing Research Careers fellowship, and that program was canceled this year before they announced the awardees,” Reyes said.

Reyes never received word on funding despite his 50-page application already having been evaluated with a merit score given by NIH experts.

These rapid cuts to reward programs have led to a funding decrease for student researchers at USC, which Reyes said is necessary for any research lab.

“One student getting funding in a lab would benefit the entire lab,” Reyes said. “It allows more money to go around for supplies, and … you could really expand your research ventures, buying the chemicals that might be a risk, [or] might not be worth purchasing. It could lead to some exciting discoveries.” 

The impact of funding cuts to students was felt throughout the entire system of research — not just an individual researcher. 

“Even if one student is affected directly, it really affects the entire lab, and in turn, the department and so on and so forth,” Reyes said.

Reyes hasn’t been the only student affected by the funding deficit. Phil Newsome, a third-year doctoral student in clinical psychology, had his personal funding slashed.

“I was funded by an administrative supplement, also known as a diversity supplement, from the [NIH],” Newsome said. “That was terminated in June.”

Without external grants to provide Newsome’s funding, he has had to rely on USC’s pre-existing mechanisms. He’s been able to get some funding back by TA-ing, which has brought some issues to Newsome’s research.

“With TA-ships here, they are required 10 hours a week,” Newsome said. “I teach two lab sections … and then on the side, I have to grade their assignments and prepare the lesson plans and things like that. It’s a significant chunk out of the week where, if I wasn’t doing that, I would clearly be doing research.”

While students continue to find ways to fund their research, professors and students alike are unsure what their future at USC holds. Victoria Petryshyn, an associate professor of environmental studies, questioned how much longer the University would be able to provide for research students.

“We can keep a lot of them covered on stipends for TA-ships and things like that, but there’s a point at which that runs out and they have to go someplace,” Petryshyn said. 

Petryshyn noted that, as grants become even more limited, grant applications will become more “hyper competitive” than before.

“We all have to eat and we all have to pay our students,” Petryshyn said.

While professors struggle to continue funding research students, anxiety is spreading among some students over what will become of academia. Newsome remained concerned for future research students.

“Money is finite, and that goes for our department as well,” Newsom said. “I have to imagine, as our federal budget gets tighter and we’re getting less money in, then less money will be available to give out to new grad students.”

Meanwhile, students like Reyes are weighing funding uncertainties when deciding whether it is worth continuing to pursue academic research rather than finding industry jobs.

“When you limit academic output, that’s going to have this cascade effect where we might not directly feel it this year or next year, but down the road, when you get a lack of innovation, or decreased amount of innovation, it would definitely be felt,” Reyes said.

For Newsome, cuts to programs like the diversity supplement he was funded by are fueled by misconceptions about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion-focused research. In February, a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation called projects that were related to social justice, environmental justice, status, race, or gender “neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.”

“There’s also a lot of work that is just people who are underrepresented doing what they would call regular science. And because of the face [on] the paper, it got cut,” Newsome said.

Even among researchers whose funding has remained largely consistent, concerns were being raised about the greater world of science and this country’s shifting importance in it. 

For Travis WIllaims, a professor of chemistry, this is a process that’s all too familiar. Williams was one of the researchers targeted by a list of “Woke DEI” NSF-funded research.

“The process [of writing grants] hasn’t changed a lot. It has always been: You talk to the program officer, you read the solicitation, you figure out what they’re looking for and if you can, respond to it,” Williams said. “What they’re looking for has changed, but what the government is looking to fund changes every year.”

Moving forward, Williams was unsure what the landscape of student research could look like.

“How many students can we train? How are we going to compensate them?,” Williams said. “How do we balance the needs of education with the needs of available funding, tuition and the growth of institutions?” 

Meanwhile, student researchers are relying on themselves to advocate for their work.

“Part of being a scientist is to be an activist for your own field,” Reyes said. “It would solve a lot of issues if the public just had a better understanding of why it takes so much money to do what we do, and why it’s also beneficial to everybody.”

Despite federal changes, Petryshyn is hopeful that the country will remember the value of science.

“My ideal scenario is we realize that funding science is an investment in America. It’s an investment in the world. It’s an investment in our future,” Petryshyn said. “When the electron was discovered, it was useless, but now it runs our society. You never know which discovery is going to be the one that changes everything.”

Sophia Kang and Miranda Huang contributed to this article.