Alisa Omelchenko, a graduate researcher in computational biology, is studying how genetic differences impact the effectiveness of medications. Her research, part of a joint program between the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, could help doctors better understand why some patients may not respond to specific drugs.
But that work, and her training, relies on funding from the National Institutes of Health. And as the Trump administration’s efforts to cut NIH funding makes its way through the courts, Omelchenko said she’s worried about whether she’ll be able to finish her degree.
“We can’t just start and stop science on a whim,” she told a roundtable of union officials, university staff and public leaders Monday. “As scientists, we transfer knowledge from one generation to the next … and this information is not easily recovered or replaced.”
The Trump administration wants to reduce NIH spending by placing a new cap on how much the agency will spend to cover ancillary expenses like building utilities, support staff, equipment and hazardous waste removal.
Pitt currently receives an additional 59% of a research grant to cover such expenses, amounting to about a third of the budget for a project. And while the Trump administration has argued that it’s wasteful for the government to fund such needs, Omelchenko said Pitt’s entire research infrastructure relies on that funding.
“We share the equipment in those buildings, and we have a lot of staff that support us,” she said. “Without the staff, without the buildings, without the resources, we would not be able to do research.”
Pittsburgh’s congressional representatives joined the roundtable at the United Steelworkers headquarters Downtown, where they warned that the proposed cuts could also be disastrous for the broader region. Democrats Chris Deluzio and Summer Lee said NIH support keeps Pittsburgh’s meds and eds economy humming.
“We are the people who made the steel to build America. We also cured polio,” said Deluzio, who previously worked as a legal policy scholar at Pitt.
“The eds and meds part of our economy is huge,” he said. “This is happening because the Trump administration is being reckless. They are pursuing dangerous cuts that can hurt a lot of jobs [and] that can stymie important research, life-saving research.”
Pittsburgh’s clinical, research, manufacturing, and technology strengths have made it a burgeoning life-sciences hub since the turn of the century. The city ranks among the nation’s top 25 life sciences markets, according to a report by the commercial real estate agency, CBRE.
But much of that acclaim relies on financial support from the National Institutes of Health. The agency is Pitt’s largest research sponsor, providing $700 million in annual funding. Pitt could lose roughly $115 million of that under the proposed reductions, based on the school’s 2024 budget. Estimates of the 2025 cost vary, and union officials said Monday the school could lose as much as $163 million.
Deluzio and Lee heard from Omelchenko as well as United Steelworkers leaders, who represent Pitt faculty, and university staff Monday.
Professor of English Tyler Bickford, unit president of the Pitt faculty union, said he’s spoken to union members who say research into Alzheimer’s and women’s health are in limbo, as NIH meetings get canceled and expected grant renewals never arrive.
“I also have members who are doing work on maternal health, exercise, musculoskeletal conditions [and] neuroengineering that are currently being told that they need to cancel some or all of their work because of components related to DEI, a term that is never defined,” he added.
Nicole Hays, a research operations manager in Pitt’s Department of Surgery, said the mood in her office since the cuts were announced last month has been “very somber and uncertain.” Pitt pays part of Hays’ salary with funds that the NIH allots to cover indirect costs.
“All of the doctors and the investigators, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said.
Meetings with the agency about future funding have been canceled and not rescheduled, Hays said. A WESA analysis found the Pittsburgh region has already received considerably less grant money from the NIH during January and February compared to previous years.
Labor advocates with the Steelworkers stressed that this gap could have real consequences for union members. USW represents around 10,000 employees at the University of Pittsburgh, including faculty and graduate workers.
“Graduate workers, many of whom also rely on NIH funding… represent the next generation of researchers and scientists,” said Bernie Hall, USW District 10 director. “Our members have told us stories about their fears of losing both their jobs and progress on critical medical research that is helping to prevent diseases, heal injuries and improve and extend people's lives.”
About 21,000 jobs across Pennsylvania are supported by funding from the NIH, according to Deluzio.
Akbar Hossain, Pennsylvania’s secretary of policy and planning, said the NIH directs about $2.2 billion into the commonwealth per year. He said the sector’s economic output is about $5 billion a year.
“This is not a dollar here or a dollar there,” he said. “This is real money that’s impacting real research … [and] innovation.”
Part of Monday’s roundtable focused on how to fight back against the cuts, either by lobbying in Congress or by pushing back in court.
Research institutions like Pitt and Carnegie Mellon University are represented in a lawsuit seeking to block the funding reductions. A Boston federal judge extended a temporary restraining order late last month, which has so far delayed the reduction. But the extension does not reflect a final ruling on the policy.
“The rule of law and the courts are going to play a big part moving forward with anything that happens,” Hossain said.
Though the courts have held off the funding cuts, Lee stressed that supporters should keep the pressure on federal lawmakers to prohibit changes from happening without their input. She said public pressure could keep the issue in focus, as other controversies cloud the landscape.
“[Their] strategy has been to make it seem like there is so much going on that it’s hard for you to stay focused on one thing,” she said. “This is one of those things that we need to penetrate into the public consciousness.”
She implored the researchers to encourage their colleagues to share their stories to help Congress understand the stakes for biomedical research.
“I don't want you all to think that this is over, or that because we see such an incompetent approach, such a frivolous approach from the administration, that there is nothing that we can do or change,” she said.
Lee advised those present to call on Pennsylvania Senators John Fetterman and Dave McCormick to stand up for Pittsburgh’s research sector.
“In Pennsylvania, we recognize that you may come from one party, [and] it may be a different party than us,” Lee said. “[But] you represent us in the Senate and not just the whims of this administration.”
Neither Fetterman nor McCormick’s office responded to a request for comment Monday.
The roundtable ended on an optimistic note as USW International vice president Roxanne Brown said unions like the Steelworkers “were built for moments like this.” But she stressed that more researchers need to come forward and share how their work could be impacted by government spending cuts.
“Right now, it requires so much courage to stick your neck out,” Brown said. “But we cannot fight without you all telling your stories.”
