American medical institutions and universities once dominated the globe in biomedical advancements, largely due to federal financial support. Public funding in scientific research contributed to the elimination of polio, the decoding of the human genome, and the creation of life-saving therapies for diseases that were once deemed fatal. However, this era of dependable federal funding is coming to a close under the present administration – placing America’s research initiatives in jeopardy.
In the last ten years, financing from the National Institutes of Health—the largest source of medical research funding in the nation—has struggled to keep up with inflation. An increasing number of researchers have been vying for a dwindling pool of funds, making grant application success rates drop, and formerly stable research projects have been sustained by sheer determination and patchwork solutions. Now, with the threats to NIH funding channels emerging from turmoil at the secretarial level of the Department of Health & Human Services, the already limited funding is further eroding.
This is a critical juncture where the competitive advantage of U.S.-based scientific establishments, including medical schools and teaching hospitals, will diminish. If the federal government can no longer act as the cornerstone of American science, then the nation’s wealthiest research institutions—specifically, our universities—must rise to the occasion. American public and private universities need to undertake actions that many are reluctant to consider: Utilize their endowment funds.
These endowments symbolize a vast pool of collective wealth and are readily accessible. Harvard’s endowment exceeds $50 billion. Stanford’s surpasses $40 billion. Yale, Princeton, and Columbia each manage several tens of billions. Together, American universities oversee more than $840 billion in endowment assets—sufficient to fund the NIH for over twenty years or more. Yet these institutions, revered for their contributions to biomedical advancements and innovation, are silently allowing their research environments to wither. Laboratories are closing down. Emerging researchers are departing academia. Areas of study that do not fit neatly within federal priorities—such as health equity, community-based research, or high-risk translational innovations—are being neglected. This represents an urgent crisis, not only for physicians, scientists, and trainees. Without new therapies, vaccines, or health initiatives, everyone suffers.
The issue extends beyond mere austerity. It is also about institutional inertia. University administrators frequently claim that their endowments come with legal restrictions or that they need to safeguard these funds for future generations. However, the situation is more complicated. Most institutions possess significant unrestricted or semi-restricted resources that can be accessed. Furthermore, they often make exceptions—to fund new facilities, invest in properties, or address deficits in athletic budgets.
To be completely honest, if universities have the means to subsidize football arenas and campus enhancement endeavors, they surely have the capacity to support biomedical research. The repercussions would be profound. If merely 1 percent of the top 25 university endowments were allocated annually to bolster research, it would yield approximately $1 billion each year—equivalent to a 7 percent increase in the NIH budget. Beyond just the monetary values, these funds would provide crucial flexibility. They could facilitate innovative, equity-focused studies, or novel clinical and mental health research that may not typically secure federal grants.
This is not solely a prudent investment: It carries moral weight. Universities are tax-exempt entities. They benefit from public grants and federal funds. They proudly highlight their contributions to society. However, this public trust comes with obligations—and in the upcoming months, the public requires them to act in favor of supporting health research. University presidents and deans should establish internal grant initiatives, give priority to underfunded research fields, and offer “bridge funding” for investigators caught in between NIH funding cycles. They should create systems that enable young physicians and scientists to flourish—not merely survive.
To clarify, no one is advocating for these institutions to deplete their resources. However, endowments exist to fulfill a mission, not remain dormant. What is the purpose of safeguarding wealth for future scholars if the very system that educates and employs them is undermined?
And this is not financially irresponsible in the slightest. Investing in research has demonstrated tangible returns. The Human Genome Project, which received just under $4 billion in federal backing, produced nearly $800 billion in economic activity over a span of two decades. Every dollar invested in science brings returns—in public health, in job creation, and in global leadership.
Thus, the issue is not whether universities have the capacity to support research. The question is whether they can afford not to. With political dynamics shifting, federal research funding is likely to keep diminishing, and if our most well-funded universities do not fill the void for their medical schools and teaching hospitals, we risk squandering generations of progress. It is time for universities to cease their inaction regarding their endowments and actively advocate for science.
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dradeelmkhan/"