ADRIAN FLORIDO, HOST:
Twenty-two states and a coalition of research institutions were in federal court today. They were trying to block the Trump administration from reducing a key type of medical research funding in the United States. Also this week, the National Science Foundation fired 10% of its workforce. Here with more are NPR's science correspondents Rob Stein and Jonathan Lambert. Hey, guys.
ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Hey, Adrian.
JONATHAN LAMBERT, BYLINE: Hello.
FLORIDO: Rob, let's start with you. News from the courtroom today - what is this case about?
STEIN: This is a huge case for biomedical research. A federal judge in Boston is deciding the legality of a cap the Trump administration wants to put on these certain research expenses. The policy change was announced suddenly two weeks ago, stunning medical researchers from coast to coast. The administration wants to limit what the National Institutes of Health spends on overhead - what's known as indirect costs - at 15% of the direct grant money that goes to fund the research.
Indirect costs go towards stuff like, you know, maintaining buildings, paying electric bills, administrative staff, IT - all the stuff they need to keep the labs going. And 15% is far lower than the 50- or even 60% that many universities and other research institutes get. This is a system that's been in place for decades and that many credit for making the U.S. a global leader in medical research, so the change could fundamentally change the search for new cures in this country.
FLORIDO: So what happened in court today?
STEIN: So the cap has been on hold because of a temporary restraining order imposed by Federal District Court Judge Angel Kelley. Today, she heard almost two hours of arguments from the lawyers representing the 22 states as well as the research institutions that filed three lawsuits challenging the cap. They want the temporary block to be permanent. They argued that the cap would cause devastating, even irreparable harm to medical research and is illegal because it violates federal laws about how the NIH sets these rates through negotiations with research institutions.
On the flip side, an attorney representing the Trump administration argued that the administration is fully within its rights to do this. He noted that private foundations pay far less for indirect costs and argued that many institutions could cover the costs themselves by eliminating waste or dipping into their endowments. He also challenged the idea that this is a cut in funding for medical research. He says the cap would free up about $4 billion that could be redirected to fund even more research.
FLORIDO: So what happens now, Rob?
STEIN: So the judge indefinitely extended the temporary restraining order, halting the cap from going into effect and told the lawyer she'd rule as quickly as she can. During the hearing, she peppered both sides with tough questions but didn't really give any indication which way she's leaning. But the stakes are very high. I recently visited a scientist at the University of Maryland who studies how respiratory illnesses spread. He told me he'd have to lay off half the people in his lab if the cap goes into effect.
FLORIDO: Wow.
STEIN: And that's a scenario I've heard repeated throughout the country.
FLORIDO: So, Jon, bring us up to speed on what's happened this week at the National Science Foundation.
LAMBERT: Yeah. On Tuesday morning, 168 of the agency's roughly 1,700 employees got fired without severance. A spokesperson said that the Trump - the firings were to comply with President Trump's recent executive order aimed at reducing the federal work source. NSF is the biggest funder of basic science research in the U.S. It's got a budget of about $9 billion, and most of that goes to scientists and - at universities and other institutions to fund everything from astrophysics to civil engineering research. And these cuts could really jeopardize that science.
FLORIDO: What do we know about the people who were fired?
LAMBERT: The firings targeted most of the agency's probationary employees who have fewer job protections than permanent vets, and all their temporary analysts were let go. Many fired staff were program officers who oversee tens of millions of dollars' of - worth of grants in specific fields, like cybersecurity or polar research. Several I spoke to had recently completed their one-year probationary periods, but NSF changed their status back to probationary in January and then fired them. Many of the fired employees were told that they were being terminated for poor performance, but many who I spoke with say they got great performance reviews, and that raises some questions about the legality of these firings.
FLORIDO: Jon, you know, what effect could this all have on the agency's ability to fund research?
LAMBERT: Yeah. Much like what Rob said about the NIH, the impacts at NSF could be really huge. Staff there are already stretched very thin, and this will make it a lot harder for the agency to do its work evaluating grant proposals and funding new research. Ultimately, that could slow or even stall discoveries in whole disciplines, depending on how hard they were hit.
I spoke with Mike Steele, who was fired this week. He worked at an NSF office dedicated to protecting U.S. research from foreign interference. He says that between firings and resignations, his office is down to just three people from around 16. And he says that just hamstrings their ability to make sure that U.S. research isn't misused or even stolen by foreign adversaries.
FLORIDO: So what's next for the National Science Foundation?
LAMBERT: More cuts, likely - NSF staff have been told to expect that anywhere from 25- to 50% of them could lose their jobs soon, and they're expecting potentially billions of dollars cut from their budget. Altogether, that would be just an enormous blow to U.S. science.
FLORIDO: Rob, back to the NIH. It's the world's largest public funder of biomedical research.
STEIN: Right.
FLORIDO: You know, what else is happening there?
STEIN: Yeah, there's a lot going on. The F - the NIH was swept up with this wave of federal layoffs hitting the government as well. The NIH lost about 1,200 employees throughout the agency. And, you know, although the NIH is supposed to be able to continue to review and approve new grants, I recently learned that that's been put on hold, too. The NIH has been barred from posting notices in the federal register. Now, that may sound arcane, but that technicality prevents the NIH from convening meetings - really important meetings - necessary to review and approve billions of dollars of grants.
FLORIDO: I've been speaking with NPR science correspondents Rob Stein and Jonathan Lambert. Thanks so much, you two.
STEIN: You bet.
LAMBERT: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
