University of Massachusetts Amherst professor Bethany Bradley is comfortable talking about her 15 years of research regarding the detriments of invasive species exacerbated by climate change. But recently, she found herself testifying before state legislators about canceled grants, staff shortage and impending harm to the environment.
“Invasive species cost the U.S. economy $10 billion per year in economic damages, and climate change is making them worse,” Bradley told the Legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies two weeks ago. But the Trump administration’s funding cuts have been a “wrecking ball” to health and environmental research.
As the co-director of the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, she said that projects that typically require a full staff of 20 people are currently supported by one person.
“The Trump administration has been and is a disaster for research,” Bradley said. “Shutting [funding] off means starting back from square one, which means that we’re set back five years, 10 years, [and] a generation, in some cases, depending on what the research projects are.”
Bradley cited past cases of invasive species devastating ecosystems in Massachusetts, such as the outbreak of the Asian Longhorn beetle. To manage the outbreak, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and the state government cut down 30,000 trees in Worcester.
Bradley was joined by other higher education professors and officials who testified about the strain of federal funding cuts to research in medicine, Alzheimer’s disease, AI, and other fields. These professors voiced their support for Gov. Maura Healey’s proposed bill that would fund $400 million to universities, hospitals, and independent research institutions.
The measure, known as the Discovery, Research and Innovation for a Vibrant Economy (DRIVE) Initiative, would draw state funding from the Fair Share Amendment, a 4% tax on those who earn an annual income over $1 million. Known as the “millionaire’s tax,” it was passed by voters in 2022. Some funding would also come from a one-time, multiyear research funding pool, housed at MassDevelopment.
Bradley expressed how “heartening” it was to see other university staff uniting for the bill at the hearing in spite of these losses. For example, UMass President Marty Meehan testified its medical school has two Nobel Laureate winners and brings in $869 million for research, just behind Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He noted that while UMass was awarded 356 grants last year, that total had dwindled to 156 grants this year.
“Because of research for the federal government, the Massachusetts economy supports over 81,000 jobs, and it’s critical to future job growth in the commonwealth,” Meehan said.
Meehan also opened up about his personal connection to cancer research during the hearing.
“On a personal note, yesterday, my family and I buried my 66-year-old sister due to brain cancer,” Meehan said. “I know that a lot of the things that can solve the issue of cancer, they’re in research right now.”
UMass Chan Medical School Chancellor Dr. Michael Collins also voiced concern for cancer research projects and explained how funding cuts forced the school to “reduce the staff.”
“There are too many patients to be patient, and we shouldn’t be killing research,” Collins said. “We should be killing cancer, and so I would say to those who think it’s a good idea to cut research that those are not good ideas and that we should be doing everything we can to keep America’s preeminent position in biomedical science.”
Steven Cadrin, a professor at UMass Dartmouth, stressed the diminishing talent pool due to funding cuts.
“Many talented young scientists are out of work. With few prospects for employment, many are leaving the state and many are leaving the country to continue research,” Cadrin said during the hearing.
Cadrin specializes in marine science and fisheries. He claimed that nearly 100% of graduate students who emerge from his department’s program are employed in regional fishery science and management.
Rep. Michael Soter, R-Bellingham, pushed back on pleas for more state funding, arguing that these institutions can draw on endowments to fund projects.
“They pay no property tax, they pay no income tax,” Soter said. “So when they tell me that their endowment money is strictly for that, then how can we have so many more people that are not getting into these colleges, or can go to these colleges, or afford to go to these colleges?”
Soter claimed that endowments make up billions of dollars and that universities could increase their endowments by asking for money from the biotech industry. He also claimed the biotech industry made $330 billion in profit over the last three years.
Meehan said universities cannot redirect endowment funding to any research project they want, as private donations are dedicated to the university for specific reasons such as financial aid.
While Soter expressed concerns over expanding the reach of the Fair Share Amendment, he also mentioned the harms of making budgetary changes, such as reduced funding to items currently supported by the amendment.
“If you start playing a shell game with money, pre-K through 12 will get hurt,” Soter said.
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, argued that increasing tax through the Fair Share Amendment has made Massachusetts more unappealing to competitive businesses.
If Healey’s DRIVE proposal were enacted, Craney argued it would lead to fewer jobs, less job growth and investment, and other economic setbacks.
“There’s no guarantee that tax is going to bring in a billion dollars next year, because you’re dealing with such a small pool of taxpayers. Even the slightest change to that pool will have a huge impact on the collection of that revenue,” Craney said.
When asked whether funding higher education could also create jobs, Craney said the money universities receive is “still fungible” with nothing stopping administrators from redirecting it to other projects.
While Craney declared the Fair Share Amendment makes Massachusetts less competitive, Healey emphasized how the tax dollars generated are necessary. She argued the federal cuts make it harder for universities to hire talent, while making underfunded projects less attractive and competitive on both a statewide and international level.
“This is about stabilizing and supporting public higher ed right now, at a time when it’s under attack,” Healey said.
To Bradley, the federal funding cuts are the Trump administration’s political signal of what matters.
“Nothing like this has ever happened before, and I think some of the big concern is not just general cuts to research, but is that these are very specific areas that the Trump administration is going after,” Bradley said.
Joanna Malvas writes for the Gazette as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.