“In every crisis, there are real opportunities to reimagine ourselves.” Those words were spoken by University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP) President Darryll Pines, PhD, MS, in July as he joined University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) President Bruce E. Jarrell, MD, FACS, on the program Virtual Face to Face.

Indeed, for the last several months, universities across the country have been engaging in some form of reinvention or at least reassessment of their operations. Certainly, no facet of university life has experienced more changes than their research enterprises.

Around this time last year, the news about research was very different and very positive at UMB and UMCP. The National Science Foundation’s Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey showed the combined University of Maryland research enterprise ranked 18th among all universities, 11th among public universities, and 14th overall in federally financed research, particularly in areas such as addiction disorders, genomics, infectious and emerging diseases, cancer, climate change, AI, and, of course, quantum science at College Park.

But not long after the calendar flipped to January, everything began to change. Among the 26 executive orders signed by the new president just on Day 1 was this one: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”

That executive order has been cited as a reason to terminate grants for things like studying health care disparities, autism in girls, HIV prevention in Latino and Black men, and a lot more.

Another notable executive order titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” gives political appointees oversight over grantmaking and makes it easier to terminate for convenience. And there are plenty of other orders and policy statements that changed the way university-based research interacts with federal agencies.

By early summer, those changes resulted in the freezing or termination of dozens of University of Maryland grants, many of them with multiyear financial implications. But, as bad as it’s been here, a small number of other universities have been under extreme pressure, threatened with the loss of most or all federal funding over allegations of civil rights violations. Those mostly concern allegations of antisemitism in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests, but they also involve other kinds of campus conduct like diversity initiatives and free speech.

Harvard, Cornell, Northwestern, the University of California system, Brown, and Columbia saw a combined $6 billion in grants frozen or canceled. Some of them have reached or are negotiating deals with the government to restore funding. For example, with $1 billion in grants at risk, Cornell agreed to a settlement that includes a $100 million payout and an agreement to make significant policy changes.

Columbia University agreed to pay $221 million and institute what it called “enhancements to campus safety, changes to disciplinary processes, and renewed efforts to foster an inclusive and respectful learning environment.”

Back here in Maryland, by the end of the summer most of our research grants that had been frozen or terminated had been restored, much of that the result of court actions by Maryland’s attorney general in concert with like-minded attorneys general in states like New York and Massachusetts.

But the future is no less uncertain. A late-August Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to move forward with the cancellation of close to $800 million in what it called DEI-related grants, while challenges in lower courts continue.

In September, top administrators in Baltimore and College Park watched with cautious optimism as grant awards and requests for awards for the new fiscal year began to come in again. Of course, the government shutdown Oct. 1 has halted all new grant activity, although grants already approved continue to be funded.

Still, there are so many questions. Will government agencies, as announced, continue to press to slash reimbursement for indirect costs from more than 50 percent at institutions like ours to just 15 percent?

Will the scale of federally funded research from the largest federal funding agencies — NIH, DOD, Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation — maintain recent levels or will funding drop off?

Will our scientists and our facilities be able to meet the changing priorities, particularly those who specialize in areas like infectious disease and vaccine development?

And will our research enterprise be able to count on increased support from philanthropic organizations or even state funding?

Joining President Jarrell to help answer those questions on the Nov. 3 edition of Virtual Face to Face were Vice President for Research Patrick O’Shea, PhD, MS, and Robert Ernst, PhD, the Dr. Paul and Mrs. Jean Corcoran Endowed Professor and Chair of the Department of Microbial Pathogenesis in the School of Dentistry.

The one-hour program included discussion among the panelists and numerous questions from the live audience. To watch the entire program, use the video link at the top of this page.