C&EN: "University of California backs plan for $23 billion research bond"

From C&EN's Krystal Vasquez, this news: 

The University of California (UC) system announced March 5 that it’s sponsoring a bipartisan state senate bill that proposes a $23 billion bond to fund research across California, which would be the largest state-level investment in scientific research in US history.

S.B. 895, introduced by California senator Scott Wiener (D) in January, would also establish the California Foundation for Science and Health Research, which would use the money to provide grants and loans to public and private universities, research companies, and health-care organizations across the state.

The bill comes after a year of major turmoil over federal funding in support of the US scientific community. Although fiscal year (FY) 2025 budgets for federal science-funding agencies weren’t too different from FY 2024 levels, federally funded research at more than 600 colleges and universities still saw significant disruptions after the Donald J. Trump administration terminated or froze thousands of research grants last year.

I am sad that it has come to this, but from a broad perspective, it seems like a good move to support scientists in the current system. We can't do this forever. 

Harvard Crimson: Harvard Chemistry to cut entering grad student class to 4 to 5 students in 2026

Via Jon Ben-Menachem on Bluesky, this news from the Harvard Crimson (article by William C. Mao and Veronica H. Paulus, emphasis mine): 

"The Faculty of Arts and Sciences slashed the number of Ph.D. student admissions slots for the Science division by more than 75 percent and for the Arts & Humanities division by about 60 percent for the next two years.

...The Organismic and Evolutionary Biology department will shrink its class size by roughly 75 percent to three new Ph.D. students, according to two professors. Molecular and Cellular Biology will reduce its figure to four new students, and Chemistry and Chemical Biology will go down to four or five admits, one of the professors added.

The reduction in admissions slots puts a figure to FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra’s announcement in late September that the school would be admitting Ph.D. students at “significantly reduced levels.” Hoekstra cited uncertainty around research funding and an increase to the endowment tax — which could cost Harvard $300 million per year — as sources of financial pressure."

Well, add this to the list of things that I did not accurately predict on January 20 of this year. While I do feel that this may be unique to Harvard (due to the direct attention that has attracted from the Trump Administration), it is very clear that PhD admissions will be significantly reduced to chemistry programs in Fall 2026 and likely for the foreseeable future. That is very bad news for the long run of the American chemical enterprise, both academic and industrial.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but you can perhaps imagine a scenario where this is simply a one to two year blip at Harvard and not a widespread crimp on forward research in academic chemistry in the United States, but I would not bet next month's mortgage payment on that one. 

Obviously, this will have odd and stochastic short-term impacts throughout the academic pipeline. It appears that class sizes are in the 30ish range for Harvard CCB; this means that 25ish students will have to find homes somewhere else in academia or industry. If this is a ripple simply in Cambridge, that is one thing - if it is larger (i.e. I estimate that the entering class in the United States in normal times is somewhere around 3300 students per year in PhD programs in chemistry) and we're looking at the system cutting students by some very large percentage, this will definitely have impacts for years to come. 

Best wishes to the affected students, and to all of us. 

C&EN: "GSK and Lilly to spend billions on US manufacturing"

Via C&EN, this news (article by by Aayushi Pratap) 

Big pharma companies continue to announce big, splashy investments in the US as President Donald J. Trump threatens tariffs on pharmaceutical imports.

GSK, the British pharmaceutical company, is the latest to join the club. The company has pledged to invest $30 billion in establishing manufacturing, research, and supply chain facilities in the US over the next 5 years. The announcement came on Sept. 17, during Trump’s recent 3C&E-day visit to the UK.

The new infusion will include an initial $1.2 billion investment, which will largely go toward setting up a new artificial intelligence–driven biologics facility at GSK’s existing site in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The construction will begin in 2026 and will create hundreds of new jobs. When it starts, the facility will help ramp up production of its range of medicines for respiratory diseases and cancers.

...Separately, Eli Lilly and Company has announced plans to build a $5 billion manufacturing plant in Richmond, Virginia. The new site, which will be ready by 2030, will be dedicated to the production of Lilly’s portfolio of antibody-drug conjugates and monoclonal antibodies, Lilly says. The company expects that the site will create 650 new jobs.

I think that this push towards US manufacturing is clearly politically driven. I am curious to know if and how research head count will change in the United States over the next five to ten years. 

ACS to give out graduate student bridge funding

Via Chemical and Engineering News, this ACS news: 

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Chemical Society announced that the ACS Board of Directors has approved $2.5 million to be granted to graduate students who have been impacted by the termination or cancellation of their adviser’s research grant(s). Wayne E. Jones Jr., chair of the ACS Board of Directors, revealed the details at the ACS Board Open Session on Sunday, Aug. 17, during the ACS Fall 2025 meeting.

“This program addresses the growing concern of the disruption of graduate education due to unexpected loss of research funding . . . helping ensure continuity and training and protecting the future of our US-based scientific workforce,” said Jones.

The initiative is being called the ACS Graduate Student Success Grant. The goal is to support MS and PhD students within 1 year of completion of their degree who have been impacted by the termination or cancellation of their adviser’s research grant(s). These students will be eligible for $25,000 for 1 year, and this will be per research institution. Submissions will open Sept. 15 and close Oct. 1. Additional information about the grant can be found at www.acs.org/gradsuccessgrant.

It is a good thing that the Society is doing this, but the real issue (in my opinion) is that we have no idea how many impacted graduate students there are. There are 100 awards to be given. Rough math indicates there are something like 3000 graduate students in chemistry per year (based on the Survey of Earned Doctorates.) We have no good idea of how many affected students there are - I sincerely hope and pray this is sufficient. 

C&EN: "Japanese chemical makers dodge US tariff bullet"

Via C&EN, this trade news (by Katsumori Matsuoka): 

The Japanese chemical industry is breathing a sigh of relief over new US tariffs set to take effect on Aug. 7. Analysts say the deal, which imposes a tariff of 15% on most Japanese goods, will leave the chemical and pharmaceutical industries largely unharmed, though regional sluggishness may surface in the case of plastics for the auto industry.

The tariff is a reduction from the 25% levy that US president Donald J. Trump had threatened to impose on Japan if the country didn’t strike a trade deal, though it is higher than the low-single-digit rate that previously applied to many products from Japan.

Mikiya Yamada, an analyst with Mizuho Securities’ equity research division, says the direct impact of the tariffs on chemical exports to the US will be “insignificant.” The number of chemical products, mainly specialty chemicals, that are exempt from the tariffs has reached approximately 500 items, he says. 

“Japanese products, including pharmaceuticals, have a high share that are exempt from taxation,” he says, and tariffs that do apply should be fairly easy to pass on to customers.

Moreover, Japanese companies that supply plastics and other chemicals to local automakers were preparing to cut prices to help their customers compensate for a 25% tariff, Yamada says. With a 15% tariff, those cuts won’t be as steep.

Definitely interesting to see how manufacturers were indeed prepared to eat some tariffs. Will be interesting to see how this all impacts supply chains. 

Laura Loomer forces out CBER head Vinay Prasad

Via the New York Times: 

The Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine and gene therapy official resigned on Tuesday after a public campaign against him led by the right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, according to people familiar with the matter.

Over the past week, Ms. Loomer had taken to social media to attack the official, Dr. Vinay Prasad, for a series of decisions denying approval of new drugs for rare diseases. She highlighted past statements of support he had made for prominent figures on the political left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont.

Andrew Nixon, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman, confirmed the resignation Tuesday evening.

“Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the F.D.A. in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,” Mr. Nixon said in a statement. “We thank him for his service and the many important reforms he was able to achieve in his time at F.D.A.”

Looks like Endpoints had it first, for the record. 

I don't have much positive to say about Dr. Prasad, but I agree that Sarepta needed to pull its drug off the market. Of all the moves he made, I feel that one was the least controversial. We'll have to see what ultimately was the cause of this resignation. 

Meanwhile, the political independence of FDA is basically fully gone. I don't think the Trump Administration realizes how they are killing the golden goose that is the American life sciences/pharmaceutical complex, from academia to industry to government. I hope these moves are reversible, but most of them are not, I fear. 

FiercePharma: "Trump renews 200% tariff threat on pharmaceuticals, indicates plan for grace period"

Via FiercePharma: 

Already late with carrying out his administration's prior threats around pharmaceutical tariffs, President Donald Trump has again renewed his pledge of quickly imposing drug levies.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the President raised the prospect of slapping tariffs as high as 200% on foreign-made pharmaceutical products. In addition, he said he plans to give manufacturers at least a year to move their operations to the U.S.

“We’re going to give people about a year, a year and a half, to come in,” Trump said, as quoted by Bloomberg. “And after that they’re going to be tariffed if they have to bring the pharmaceuticals into the country, the drugs and other things, into the country. They’re going to be tariffed at a very, very high rate, like 200%. We’ll give them a certain period of time to get their act together.”

I have been on record for a while observing that these tariffs seem unlikely to happen. I continue to believe this, especially since this is such a vital industry and the blowback would be almost immediate. Will the President pullet out? We shall see. 

I was also interested to note this obscure Bloomberg item: 

"Australia is “urgently seeking” more detail on President Donald Trump’s threat to impose 200% tariffs on pharmaceutical imports to the US, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said... 

Australia exported A$2.1 billion ($1.4 billion) worth of medicinal/pharmaceutical products to the US in 2024, or 38% of the nation’s overseas shipments of pharmaceuticals. That accounted for 0.4% of total goods exports, according to AMP Ltd."

I don't think of Australia as a major exporter of pharma goods into the US (they are not a large portion (I estimate them to be 0.5% or so ($1.4 billion and US imports overall appear to be in the $200 billion range)), but who knew? 

We'll see how this shakes out...

C&EN: "At Columbia University, chemical scientists are dismayed by funding cuts"

In this week's C&EN, this news (article by Aayushi Pratap): 

...About 40 blocks north of Columbia’s main campus is the university’s Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, located in the Washington Heights neighborhood. It’s the research home of Barry Honig, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biophysics who has spent over 4 decades as a researcher at Columbia studying protein interactions.

Honig was one of the collaborators on a project valued at over $1 million that lost its NIH grant. The group was investigating how proteins implicated in cancers interact with each other and the most effective ways to target them with drugs. “One day, the grant just didn't exist anymore—it is nothing like we have seen before,” he says. Columbia is currently in the process of negotiating the terms to restore the funding, he adds.

Honig says the research is fundamental to the field because scientists are only beginning to understand how proteins interact with each other. “We need this information to understand how drugs might bind to these proteins,” he says.

Looks like California is next. What a mess. 

FiercePharma: "FDA misses another approval decision target date, this time for GSK's Nucala in COPD"

Via FiercePharma, this news: 

In the wake of mass restructuring efforts across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA has missed yet another approval decision target date.

GSK had expected to secure an FDA nod for its IL-5 antibody Nucala in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on Wednesday, but the May 7 deadline has come and gone without a decision from the U.S. regulator.

“Based on our latest discussions with the FDA, we continue to expect approval,” a GSK spokesperson said in an email.

“The FDA is actively reviewing our submission for Nucala in COPD and we are working closely with them to help bring this important treatment option to patients as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said, caveating that the company does “not comment on ongoing discussions with regulatory authorities.”

Between the president's new executive order and this news, it very much feels like the Executive Branch is threatening pharma revenue streams directly. I can't imagine this will do anything good for hiring, especially in terms of entry-level R&D positions.  

MilliporeSigma instituting tariff charge in the US

Seen via email (emphasis mine): 

Tariff Impact and Approach

Dear Valued Customer,

MilliporeSigma's top priority is to ensure that patients, researchers, and customers worldwide continue to benefit from our innovations without disruption.

Starting in early April, we have witnessed new tariff schemes across the world. As a global company operating in many regions, we are making every effort to minimize the effect of these changes for our customers. However, like many businesses, the new tariffs are impacting our operations.

To maintain our operational integrity and continue delivering the service and quality our customers rely on, we have made the decision to implement a tariff surcharge. This temporary surcharge is in lieu of a tariff cost passthrough and protects our customers from experiencing the full impact of the broad tariff rates, some of which are very high. By leveraging a surcharge, we retain flexibility to adjust or remove the surcharge if the situation changes in the coming weeks or months.

Effective May 5, the surcharge will be applied to product orders shipped to locations in the United States which reflects the tariffs' broader impacts on our overall global supply chain processes, including production and procurement costs in addition to any direct costs on products. This charge will appear as a separate line item on quotes and invoices.

We understand that surcharges can be challenging, and we appreciate your understanding and continued support. In the meantime, we are working across our teams to reduce further impacts by strengthening our global presence, balancing investments across regions, and ensuring the resilience of our supply chain.

Sincerely,

Jean Charles Wirth

Head of Science and Lab Solutions

Well, that's not good for anyone. 

Letter to the editor: "If ACS won’t stand up now, it should stand down."

Via Chemical and Engineering News, this letter: 

ACS Comment on supporting science

The March 24, 2025, edition of C&EN had a report by Wayne E. Jones Jr., chair of the American Chemical Society Board of Directors (page 41). Dr. Jones, you are complicit in your silence: the elephant in the room is Donald J. Trump. The president has single-handedly destroyed one of the greatest science enterprises the world has ever seen. I am reminded of Germany circa the 1930s. Things are not OK.

I have been a member of ACS for nearly 50 years. It seems that the organization is a clique whose mission is to give one another awards, ensure promotion and tenure, and receive grants. Thanks to the attack on science by this administration, the clique is about to crumble. Your colleagues will lose grant money, their students won’t get jobs or even graduate, the international postdocs you thought you would hire won’t get visas, and universities won’t get funding for overhead. In short, the research environment in the US is in shambles.

Jones’s report is spineless­—unwilling to take a risk, timid—and irrelevant. If ACS won’t stand up now, it should stand down.

Larry Lewis 

Niskayuna, New York

Well, I can't say I disagree much.  

 

C&EN on the second Trump Administration tariffs

Via C&EN's Alex Tullo: 

The Donald J. Trump administration is imposing the toughest trade barriers in generations, levying new duties of at least 10% on every major trading partner. But the duties exempt many chemicals and most pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and energy products.

Here's the key paragraphs: 

The White House has excluded many products from the tariffs, including an expansive number of major chemicals. These products include polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate; petrochemicals like phenols and ethylene; and other large-volume chemicals such as titanium dioxide. The list also has exclusions for pharmaceutical products, semiconductors, and energy products. Some products on the exemption list may be subject to later tariffs.

Chemical industry groups are weighing in on the measures carefully. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it is studying them to see how they affect the US industry. “ACC wants to work consistently with the Administration on a pro-growth trade agenda that decreases America’s supply chain vulnerabilities while negotiating new measures that benefit domestic production and jobs,” the group says in a statement.

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) calls for a “strategic, sector-informed approach” in a statement. “Many SOCMA members are now confronting significantly higher costs for the raw materials they rely on—inputs often unavailable at scale within the US,” the trade group says.

In a note to clients, Laurence Alexander, a stock analyst with the investment firm Jefferies, says the most important impact of the new tariffs will be their effect on demand for chemicals from all sources. The global chemical industry overall will face a roughly 0.8% headwind, he says, while demand for chemicals serving durable goods and clothing markets could see as much as a 6% impact.

I think this bears a lot of watching and close reading. It sounds like there will be pharma tariffs as well. I can't imagine this does anything good for industrial chemist hiring this year but we will see. I thought this comment from Lilly's CEO was grimly ironic: 

Lilly has been one of the industry leaders in building up its U.S. production capabilities. Since 2020, the Indianapolis drugmaker has earmarked $50 billion to construct and upgrade new plants in the U.S. But Lilly also depends largely on foreign manufacturing, most notably in business-friendly Ireland, where it employs more than 3,000 and is constructing a new $800 million facility. 

“We can’t breach those agreements, so we have to eat the cost of the tariffs and make trade-offs within our own companies,” Ricks told BBC. “Typically, that will be in reduction of staff or research and development, and I predict R&D will come first. That’s a disappointing outcome.”

If Lilly with all of this Mounjaro revenue is planning on cutting R&D back, what will the other pharma firms do? 

Trump: Pharma tariffs to start

Via the Wall Street Journal on Thursday: 

President Trump reiterated his pledge to impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors during his Air Force One flight Thursday, but he didn't say when they would be announced.

“The chips are starting very soon,” he said. “The pharma is going to start coming in, I think, at a level that we haven’t really seen before. We are looking at pharma right now. Pharmaceuticals. It’s a separate category. We’ll be announcing that sometime in the near future. It’s under review right now.”

Well, I don't know what this all means, but I don't think it means anything good for chemists in the United States. I guess we're going to find out. 

C&EN: "Trickles of layoff plans at EPA, NIH hint at big cuts"

Also in this week's C&EN, this summary of cuts at EPA and NIH (article by Leigh Krietsch Boerner and Rowan Walrath)

Federal agencies are awash in uncertainty as details about reduction-in-force (RIF) plans, ordered by President Donald J. Trump, slowly seep out. As part of his Feb. 11 executive order to “eliminat[e] waste, bloat, and insularity,” Trump required federal agencies to prepare and submit reorganization plans by March 13 that include large-scale RIFs.

Many federal scientific agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Agriculture, have yet to share details of their RIF plans. But parts of plans at other science agencies suggest that many federal workers may soon lose their jobs. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a few details of its plans ahead of the March 13 deadline, but employees mostly remain unaware of what’s to come, according to NIH staffers. And parts of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s plans were first reported March 17 by the New York Times.

According to a portion of the EPA’s reorganization plan shared with C&EN by Democratic staff on the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the Office of Research Development (ORD), the agency’s research arm.

The reorganization plan reviewed by the committee’s Democratic staff says the ORD has 1,540 employees, not counting special government employees and public health officers, “of which we anticipate a majority (50–75%) will not be retained.” The remaining ORD employees will be transferred to other EPA program offices, the plan says.

This is grim news for federal scientists. If any of the RIF'd scientists are readers, please feel free to email: chemjobber -at- gmail dot com. 

C&EN: "Chemical makers brace for trade war"

In this week's C&EN, this article by Alex Tullo: 

...A trade war would be disruptive to the chemical industry. Canada, Mexico, and China are the top three US trading partners generally and the three leading export destinations for chemicals. Canada imported $29.5 billion worth of chemicals, excluding pharmaceuticals, from the US in 2024; Mexico imported $27.6 billion, and China, $14.7 billion.

Over the past decade, exports have become increasingly important to the US chemical industry. Because US petrochemical makers have access to cheap raw materials extracted from natural gas found in shale, they enjoy a cost advantage over their foreign counterparts. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on new capacity for products sold into export markets. For example, according to the Census Bureau, US exports of polyethylene and copolymers have more than doubled since 2014, hitting $16.5 billion in 2024. New tariffs imposed by other countries on products like these would chip away at the US advantage.

The US is also a major destination for exports from Canada, China, and Mexico. It imported $24.1 billion in chemicals from Canada, $13.8 billion from China, and $7.8 billion from Mexico last year.

Many US specialty and fine chemical makers depend on chemical intermediates that are produced mainly or exclusively in China. In 2019, the previous Trump administration erected tariffs of around 25% on many Chinese imports. At the time, US specialty chemical makers were able to appeal to the Office of the US Trade Representative to secure exclusions so that the raw materials they needed wouldn’t appear on duty lists.

Fewer than 20% of the exclusion requests were granted, notes Robert Helminiak, vice president of legal and government relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), a trade group. Now there will be no such process, and US importers will have to pay the duty on all products.

“The executive order is explicit in that there are no exemptions,” Helminiak says.

It will be really interesting to see what the Chinese do in response. The Trump Administration folks seem to think that the Chinese will simply lower their prices (and there appears to be deflation in China already?). I suppose we shall see.

Reddit: Iowa State Chemistry cancels PhD admissions for international student

Via Reddit: 

The poster is an international student. 

This is the Trump Administration's doing, and it is bad for the country. 

Will the ACS address the Trump Administration's attack on academic funding?

I made a series of comments on Bluesky (more or less off the cuff), but I guess I'll make them here as well. I was thoroughly unimpressed with ACS' recent statement "in support of science": 

...Each year, the American Chemical Society develops a U.S. public policy agenda that outlines how the organization will work with Congress and the administration throughout the course of the year. The agenda is shared at the start of the year when both bodies are traditionally preparing for the year ahead. But the start of this year has been different with federal actions coming immediately. The resulting changes in the federal landscape have been swift, leaving many unsure about what lies ahead. 

We are seeing changes occurring that have potential impacts on the areas of research eligible for federal funding, the types of scientific data being reported, and the level of indirect costs associated with federal biomedical research grants. These are just some of the potential impacts facing the scientific enterprise, with new actions emerging each day...

We're in this moment that we don't really understand, with a real "fog of war" aspect, because the government simply is not actually talking about what they are doing. The Trump White House* appears to be attacking American scientific academia by cutting off funding from NSF and NIH, and slowing the process of grants and cutting indirect costs to the point that universities are beginning to slow PhD admissions (although things seem to be unfreezing now.) 

I've observed ACS leadership long enough to know that political courage or speed are simply not in the cards, and I recognize that they are probably trying to avoid attracting attention, and that the Trump Administration seems very likely to attack non-profits through the tax system for punishment. Nevertheless, simple acknowledgement of what is happening and the level of seeming existential alarm that is taking place in American academia does not seem forthcoming. I desperately hope to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. 

As I said, surely ACS leadership is working on a plan to petition the government for a redress of American academic chemistry grievances. I hope to see that plan, and very soon. 

*(seeing as how a lot of the ructions started well before, say, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was confirmed.) 

C&EN: "Impacts of NSF firings come into focus as scientists weigh next steps"

Via C&EN's Krystal Vasquez: 

US scientists are figuring out their next steps and expressing mounting concerns in the aftermath of the National Science Foundation’s move on Feb. 18 to fire about 10% of its permanent workforce...

...The NSF was already understaffed, says one former program officer affected by the firings, who would speak to C&EN only under the condition of anonymity because they plan to appeal their termination from the agency.

Now those whom the firings spared are strategizing to determine how to distribute all the work that their former colleagues would have shared, says a current program coordinator, who insisted on anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

One fired NSF employee on an expert appointment and two fired program directors, all of whom would speak to C&EN only under the condition of anonymity to avoid backlash or retaliation, say the termination notice came while many were in the middle of setting up review panels, finding reviewers, or working on solicitations—all key aspects of reviewing and awarding grants.

“It’s taking an enormous amount of effort to reassign everything that these brilliant people did,” the current program coordinator says over Signal, a secure messaging service. “We are working through deep, deep grief.”

Read the whole thing. This is quite horrible. Sorry I don't have more words. Best wishes to all those affected. 

Graduate schools, including the University of Pittsburgh, are freezing PhD admissions

Via WESA: 

Amid uncertainty about frozen research aid from the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh has put its Ph.D. admissions on ice. The school confirmed Friday that there would be no new Ph.D. offers of admission while Pitt works to understand how reduced federal aid could impact the institution.

The move comes as research universities across the country battle against the National Institutes of Health over a policy to reduce the funding cap for ancillary research expenses like building construction and maintenance as well as support staff.

The policy would reduce the cap for those indirect research costs to 15%. Pitt’s current rate is 59%. A federal judge extended a temporary pause on implementation of that policy Friday. But Pitt’s decision to halt admissions was made earlier in the week.

On Bluesky, Professor Geoff Hutchison noted that the Piit Department of Chemistry has already issued admissions and were in the midst of a visit weekend. 

[Here's a running list of schools that have confirmed that they're pausing PhD admissions, with various levels of confirmations.]

It's really hard to make predictions because we simply do not know what is going to happen from day to day with this Administration. If we have a pause in entering classes of graduate students, the effects on science will be both unpredictable (what science will not have been done?) and long-lasting (imagine if it is only this year that's affected - what would that do to the faculty job market 7 years from now?) 

It's more than a bit concerning that Derek Lowe's latest post is titled "The Continuing Crisis, Part V." Here's hoping we won't be on part XXIV by May. Best wishes to academic readers, and to all of us.

University of Iowa pauses graduate TA hiring

Via the Cedar Rapids Gazette: 

...Separate from that paused funding freeze, the NIH announced a change Friday in how and to what degree it will cover indirect costs associated with the research projects it funds — capping indirect coverage at 15 percent for new and existing grants, down from an average of 27 percent.

Indirect research funding, according to [UI Interim Vice President for Research Lois] Geist, supports state-of-the-art labs; high-speed data processing; patient safety protocols; national security protection; hazardous waste disposal; support personnel; and maintenance staff for cleaning and supplies.

“Simply put, the federal government provides reimbursement for real costs that are incurred in the process of safely and securely conducting high-impact research,” according to Geist. “This research has tangible benefits for the lives of Iowans.”

In response to the indirect cost cap, UI’s Geist on Monday imposed three directives:

• A pause on any new NIH grant applications;
• A freeze on graduate research assistant hiring, “unless they are already budgeted as a direct cost on a funded project”;
• And a slowing of general spending.

“Researchers and departments should exert extra caution and defer starting new activities until we have more clarity,” Geist wrote.

This obviously bears watching (and not that there are a lot of graduate TAs hired in February) but the war over the NIH is not ending any time soon...