Graduate students met to call their legislative representatives and express concern about recent cuts to research funds — including Bobby Huggins, who studies artificial intelligence through the lens of environmental and social sciences. (Sam Powers | Managing Photo Editor)

As a small group of graduate students listened in the audience, MD/PhD student Jamie Moffa explained how to convey the importance of their research to local and state legislators.

“Be brief, talk about your research in broad strokes, don’t use jargon, and talk about the human impact of your research,” Moffa said. 

The students were gathered — both in McDonnell Hall and at WashU’s medical campus — as part of a nationwide day of action this afternoon through the organization Labor for Higher Education to phone bank in opposition to recent proposed funding cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH). 

The graduate students who organized the event also encouraged attendees to sign a petition titled “Institutional Support for Research at WashU.” The petition calls on Martin and the WashU board of trustees to create an emergency fund in the 2025-26 budget to protect impacted researchers’ jobs in the event of significant federal funding cuts. 

Researchers at WashU and across the country have opposed recent executive orders made by President Donald Trump’s administration that would, if put into effect, reduce the amount of research funding offered by the NIH to universities. 

WashU received $731 million in NIH funding in 2024 — $683 million of which was directed towards the medical school — placing it as the second-most funded medical school in the country for the second year in a row. 

Student Life’s analysis last week found that WashU would have lost $106 million in funding if Trump’s orders had been in effect during 2024. 

PhD student Bobby Huggins, who helped organize the event alongside Moffa, also offered the group advice on how to frame the issue of research funding to conservative politicians, such as Missouri’s Republican senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. 

“They may not be sympathetic to our values, but we can still pressure them to fight back against executive overreach,” Huggins said. 

As he also pointed out, certain research areas are more likely to be affected than others. According to The Washington Post, the National Science Foundation has flagged specific keywords in titles and descriptions of research projects as potentially violating executive orders sent out by Trump. These keywords include “women,” “trauma,” and “equity.” 

Additionally, some programs that encourage people from underrepresented backgrounds to get involved in science may be impacted, such as WashU’s ENDURE research program. 

“The impacts of this will be felt hardest by … women, workers of color, and LGBTQ workers who are unfair[ly] and disproportionately targeted by the cuts, as well as non-citizen workers whose visa status could be jeopardized by the funding cuts or lack of research funding,” Huggins said.  

Maria Bruce, a PhD student in the Energy, Environmental, and Chemical Engineering Department, did not have her funding impacted by the executive orders, but knows several people who did. She noted that her funding, which comes from the Department of Energy, could be impacted in the future.

She participated in the phone banking session because she hoped that elected officials would listen to the voices of graduate student workers.

“These cuts are impacting real people,” Bruce said. “Cutting funding and moving it around isn’t just numbers that you look at on a screen. It has serious impacts on people who work in those fields.” 

Huggins’ research focuses on bridging the gap between artificial intelligence and topics in environmental and social sciences. He said that he got involved with the event not only because his research may be affected by funding cuts but also because he feels a responsibility to the greater research community.  

“The cuts are related to climate, public health, diversity, equity, inclusion, and I see those values as really a fundamental part of the University community and the research community,” Huggins said. “I think it’s our duty to speak up when we see them under attack.” 

In Huggins’ view, the funding cuts will have lasting effects beyond the immediate impact of research projects being stopped. 

“These cuts could mean [medical] treatments and therapies are delayed or just never researched in the first place,” he said. “More broadly, I’m definitely concerned about the … long term effect this might have on America’s research output, and also the chilling effect of making people feel like certain areas of research might be at the whims of political attacks at any given time.”

The topic of research funding has been widely discussed on campus over the past few weeks, with many researchers expressing frustration and concern for the future. Chancellor Andrew Martin released two public statements and one opinion piece — co-authored with Daniel Diermeier, chancellor of Vanderbilt University — within the last two weeks. 

In his first statement on Feb. 8, Martin wrote that the administration is mobilizing on multiple fronts to address this issue, and in his second statement on Feb. 10, he wrote that he believes this is a critical time for higher education that requires WashU to stay focused on its core mission.

“Proposed cuts to research funding are a prime example of the seriousness of our current situation,” Martin wrote. “We are no longer able to sit by and let our enormous impact on society be diminished or devalued.”

He also directed the WashU community to the op-ed he wrote, in which he and Diermeier expressed their belief that universities should reject “creeping politicization” and recommit to principles of excellence, commitment to academic freedom and free expression, and accessibility. 

At the phone banking session, Huggins said that he agrees with Martin’s statements about the importance of universities clearly defining their values. However, he found Martin’s remarks about rejecting the creeping politicization of universities to be problematic because he believes that research is an inherently political endeavor. 

“As researchers, we know that the values currently under attack are inextricable from our research,” Huggins said during the presentation. 

The petition circulated at the meeting also specifically called on the University to commit to funding research on issues including climate change, vaccines, and socioeconomic inequality.

“Responsible financial stewardship of the University requires immediate action. If the current research community is disrupted, it jeopardizes the long-term viability of WashU as a research institution.” the petition states.  

Huggins added that many students are turning towards the University for guidance, since it’s the entity governing their research, but do not feel as though they are receiving it.

“I really would like to see a stronger response from WashU, especially as it regards to stepping in to support funding for students and researchers whose work is affected,” he said. “I feel a lot of support from my department and the professors I work with, but I would love more support from the highest levels of the University administration.”