THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jul 14, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
NYTimes
New York Times
5 Apr 2025
Jeffrey Flier


NextImg:Opinion | What’s at Risk for Medicine at Harvard

The recent announcement that the Trump administration will review $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard, citing the university’s inadequate response to antisemitism, marks a dramatic moment in Harvard’s history. I’ve been a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty for 47 years, and I view this federal intrusion as an existential threat to the university I hold dear. I say this as a vocal critic of recent university culture and policy, including its handling of antisemitism. How did we get here?

In recent decades, Harvard, like many elite universities, has done a poor job of encouraging an environment where open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement can thrive. Through working with groups like Heterodox Academy and the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, I’ve been attempting to address these issues through internal reform. Real progress has been made, though given the complex and decentralized nature of the university, it’s not surprising that the pace of reform has been slower than desired.

The Trump administration has concluded that internal reform is impossible, so institutions must be severely punished or even destroyed and rebuilt from the ashes. This is dangerously misguided.

Private universities long ago ceased to be ivory towers independent of government, as they now receive substantial federal support for research and through student loans, along with favorable tax treatment. This growing financial connection permits the government to exert influence over university policy through civil rights law, producing outcomes ranging from the desegregation of universities in the South to several iterations of Title IX policy requirements. But current plans to close down or review vast portfolios of grants, including those from the National Institutes of Health, at Columbia and Harvard because of antisemitic actions on campus stand out as uniquely troubling and legally questionable.

While Harvard has more to do in responding to antisemitism, that issue could never justify reviewing $9 billion in support that could potentially affect research and medical care unrelated to antisemitism. Where did the figure of $9 billion come from anyway? I worry that this could include N.I.H. grants awarded to Harvard Medical School-affiliated hospitals and institutions such as Mass General Brigham, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital. This is on top of slashes to research funding already affecting research at the university and its medical centers.

Biomedical research carried out across the Harvard ecosystem is a beacon for progress across the globe, ranging from fundamental studies of molecules, cells and biological systems to therapeutic advances in cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and virtually every area of human health. N.I.H. funding supports a large proportion of this work, carried out by thousands of physicians and Ph.D. scientist faculty members and trainees. It’s unclear how the threatened review of grants will affect this extraordinary community, but losing momentum for this work and the care of patients could be dire.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.