AMHERST — Researchers at the University of Massachusetts flagship campus are anxiously awaiting a courtroom showdown in Boston on Friday that may determine whether the Trump administration can follow through on its plan to slice National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.

If the White House is successful in its effort, UMass Amherst, a public research university, stands to lose as much as $10 million, according to Mike Malone, vice chair of research and engagement at the university, who added that the cuts would bring “deep impacts” to the campus.

“At UMass Amherst, these cuts would reduce support and opportunities for research and training in biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, agriculture, biology, public health and health sciences, mathematics, chemistry, psychology and other programs,” said Malone.

The Trump administration’s proposal, announced Feb. 7, calls for a cap on all “indirect funding” from NIH at 15% for current and new grants — money that supports infrastructure-related expenses, including construction, maintenance, safety equipment and hazardous waste disposal, databases, or administrative staff. These funds, said Malone, “are critical to the work we do as researchers.”

The reduction in funding will not impact direct costs that cover researcher salaries and the tools required for research.

The cuts were temporarily blocked by a Boston federal judge on Feb. 10 until a U.S. District Court hearing in Boston on Friday, when a judge will decide whether to continue the block until the case can be heard in court and a final decision is made — a process that could potentially carry on for months or years.

Over the past five years, UMass has celebrated an increase in federal research money, but now the university, as well as other research institutions across the country, are grappling with this potential cut that’s part of the Trump administration’s slew of cutting in the name of government efficiency.

UMass Amherst officials say that NIH funding represented 17.6%, or $44.8 million, of the university’s fiscal year 2024 research budget, with $13.1 million of that total covering indirect costs.

Across the UMass system, the five campuses secured 501 NIH awards for a total of $248 million, with more than $80 million going toward indirect costs, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

NIH said it proposed new rate for indirect costs comports with market rates, drawing comparisons with non-federal organizations that offer approximately 15% toward indirect costs, including the Gates Foundation, offering 10%, and the Carnegie Institute of New York, offering 15%.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” said the NIH statement announcing the slashes. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

But various state officials objected, with some of the loudest detractors of the measure coming from Massachusetts — a top five recipient of NIH funding among the states. Just last fiscal year, NIH sponsored nearly 6,000 projects in the commonwealth that amounted to $3.5 billion, or 9.3% of all NIH funding nationally.

Sued and blocked

Judge Angel Kelley’s decision to pause implementation of the cuts stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and 21 other state attorneys general in which they accused NIH, the Trump administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services of “unlawfully” cutting funds.

The state’s legislative delegation also decried the cuts. In a joint statement, U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren and U.S. Rep. Richie Neal noted that the “drastic cuts” will diminish Massachusetts’ standing as a leader in biomedical innovation while paying for “tax breaks for billionaires.”

The statewide UMass system alone has the third-largest research portfolio among universities in Massachusetts, and the fourth-largest in New England, after Harvard, MIT and Yale, according to its website.

‘Less money to help’

Among UMass Amherst programs aided by NIH funding include the Massachusetts AI and Technology Center for Connected Care in Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease (MAITC), supported by the National Institute on Aging. The program’s research seeks to integrate AI into health care for patients with Alzheimer’s and dementia.

David Pacquette, who oversees the program, said that “this has a big potential to impact our center, as we issue pilot awards that have additional academic sites.”

Some 30 of their sites receive sub-awarding, and he said that the center is currently bracing for the worst by pausing the process of invoices, since most of the NIH grants they receive contain more than the 15% mark for indirect costs.

“We could potentially have to amend all these sub-awards,” he said, work which he said is currently adding to the confusion and stress of the potentially severe budget cuts.

Essentially, the administrative staff will have “less money to help,” he said.

Facing the possibility of impacts, Malone and Laura Vandenburg, associate vice chancellor and vice provost for research and engagement, co-signed a notice posted on Feb. 10 to the university’s research and engagement news site that underscores the importance of this funding for UMass.

“NIH funding (and federal funding more broadly) has been critical to support the nation’s research ecosystem, and thousands of institutions, including our colleagues at research hospitals, are affected by this recent action. We are continuing to work with partner organizations such as the Association for Public and Land-Grant Universities and within the UMass system, to respond to this change,” they wrote.

The two have also heard from colleagues that federal agencies may place restrictions on “no-cost extensions” that allow researchers extensions for their projects due to unforeseen circumstances, without the need to apply for more funding.

“Based on this prospect, we are recommending that PI’s [principal investigators] plan to use their allocated research budgets within budget periods whenever possible. As more information on this topic becomes available, we will share what we learn with the campus community,” they stated.

“We know that these announcements continue to invoke anxiety and concern among the campus community ... despite these changes in federal policy and procedures, our commitment to our shared values and our mission as a research university remain unchanged.”

Samuel Gelinas can be reached at sgelinas@gazettenet.com.