Northwestern's research projects at risk under Trump cuts - Evanston RoundTable

Audio By Carbonatix

Evanston, IL (Evanston RoundTable)

In April, the Trump administration's war against the nation's preeminent academic institutions intensified, effectively severing a symbiotic relationship -- a partnership in scientific innovation -- that dated back to World War II.

A blitzkrieg of stop-work orders and grant terminations bombarded the email inboxes of the country's best and brightest.

The impact was explosive. On the Northwestern University campus alone, the crater in federal resources was massive: $790 million (roughly 80 percent of the total research funding the school received in 2024).

University leaders listed some of the casualties: "research into wearable devices, robotics, nanotechnology, foreign military training, Parkinson's disease and many other critical research programs."

Julius B. Lucks, a Northwestern University professor in chemical and biological engineering, leads one multimillion-dollar endeavor that was affected.

Lucks is the co-director of the Center for Synthetic Biology at 2145 Sheridan Road.

Before landing at Northwestern, he earned degrees from the University of North Carolina and Harvard University. He also received the Churchill Scholarship to pursue advanced studies in Cambridge, England.

Last month, the Evanstonian wrote to associates that he was in "emergency mode," anxious about continuing operations amid cuts to two core projects funded by the U.S. departments of defense and education. More would likely follow.

In a phone call with the RoundTable, Lucks said defending scientific research in media interviews was not part of his original plan, but he wanted people to know what was happening.

The scientists at Lucks' laboratory, according to its website, aspire to engineer "synthetic biological systems that benefit humankind." Their main medium is ribonucleic acid (RNA), a molecule found in all living cells.

On a practical level, they want to help people determine whether their water contains lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, or synthetic "forever chemicals") and other harmful ingredients.

"If you hold up a glass of water, more than likely it looks clear, but it could have a bunch of different contaminants in it," Lucks explained.

This is a very real concern. Some Evanstonians received notices late last month that their water is delivered through lead service lines.

"Exposure to high levels of lead can impair mental function and damage every organ and system in your body," the city warned.

While those lines are reportedly being replaced, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency plans to rescind new drinking water safety standards.

If one's water is contaminated, using filters or just running the tap before pouring oneself a glass could help minimize health risks. Alternatively, if tap water is safe to drink, one might reduce costs and plastic waste by consuming less bottled water. However, in both instances, one needs to assess the quality of their water to know what steps to take.

"Just because humans can't see or taste stuff in their water doesn't mean that nothing can," Lucks said, explaining that there are "special molecules that microbes have evolved that sense all sorts of different compounds."

Lucks has been working to rewire and employ these natural biosensors in at-home tests, akin to those that detect COVID-19 infections or pregnancies. He said one could "put a drop of water in, wait a little bit, put in the little strip" and determine its suitability for consumption.

Such a product would be more efficient than paying to test a sample on a giant machine in a faraway lab. Once developed, it could be adapted for other purposes.

Why the Trump administration would haphazardly undermine the development of such a useful product (and hundreds of other engineering projects) perplexes Lucks.

If people want new technologies and a stronger economy, this "ticks both of those boxes," he noted.

Even conservative analysts acknowledge that every $1 invested in federal research generates an estimated $5 in benefits to productivity, health and living standards.

Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency, which has spearheaded the administration's cutbacks across the federal bureaucracy, offers no explanation for its actions.

Its website does not list a media contact, and its home page is merely an embedded feed of short posts on X, the social media platform owned by Trump confidante Elon Musk.

That said, news stories suggest federal dollars to academic institutions are being embargoed for two main reasons.

The first is what an administration official described to CNN as "ongoing, credible and concerning Title VI investigations" -- an apparent reference to allegations that programs that receive federal funding have engaged in discrimination.

The Trump White House has railed against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as well as "illegal protests" on campus by pro-Palestinian groups, some of which promoted antisemitic slogans.

Northwestern University sought to address these concerns by scrubbing DEI words from its web pages and reporting on its efforts to combat antisemitism, but apparently earned no dispensation for doing so.

Republicans have also justified their cuts to critical research as necessary to "rein in Washington's runaway spending and right-size the bloated federal bureaucracy" and to "reset research spending priorities."

They contend, for example, that clean energy programs are of "dubious public value," preferring to invest in other technologies.

As an American Association for the Advancement of Science publication outlined, next year's budget outlook is also bleak, if not bleaker.

Funding freezes have been challenged in court by Harvard University and could, theoretically, be unfrozen, but they are already having crippling effects.

Complex projects like Lucks' must be approached "from a lot of different angles," he said, which means the denial of resources starves a whole ecosystem of related research.

"There's the tech development piece, there's the field study piece, there's anthropologists, there's people in the law school ... there's all sorts of components, because we're getting technology out into the world" using sophisticated instruments, he explained.

More broadly, he argues, by halting scientific education and technology development, the United States government is undermining its reputation as "the No. 1 powerhouse" in these areas -- a position it has held for roughly eight decades.

Without federal support, "I don't know where people think that technology is going to be developed," he added.

"If this all goes through, we are going to have a generation gap in scientists, and we will absolutely lose our world leadership in developing new medicines, agriculture technologies, materials, etc.," Lucks predicted.

If the talent pool of capable scientists is drained from academia, it is unclear where American businesses would source them.

"This is what universities do. We do research through training the next generation of scientists," Lucks said. "Cut out the universities, [and] not only do you lose all the ideas that you're working on, you lose all the scientists."

At a May Day rally on Fountain Square, Northwestern University doctoral candidate Rohan Kota underscored this point, noting that his roommate had received a stop-work order.

The affected initiatives "are not just numbers on some budget spreadsheet, they represent real people," Kota argued.

Meanwhile, the government's unexpected about-face, from ally to adversary, is scaring Northwestern researchers, according to Sera Young, an anthropologist and one of Lucks' collaborators.

Not only does the lack of resources cloud students' once-promising futures, but some fear speaking out, lest they attract the ire of federal officials.

"Everyone is really afraid," Young said.

What happens next is hard to say. Lucks supposed existing resources would keep his lab afloat "until, I don't know, sometime in the summer." After that, "I honestly don't know what we're going to do," he said.

This story is provided as a service of the Institute for Nonprofit News’ On the Ground news wire. The Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) is a network of more than 475 independent, nonprofit newsrooms serving communities throughout the US, Canada, and globally. On the Ground is a service of INN, which aggregates the best of its members’ elections and political content, and provides it free for republication. Read more about INN here: https://inn.org/.

Please coordinate with [email protected] should you want to publish photos for this piece. This content cannot be modified, apart from rewriting the headline. To view the original version, visit: http://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/05/20/trump-administration-cuts-scientific-funding/