Campus & Community

Yale, other universities file brief in case aiming to preserve research funding that benefits America

An amicus brief filed by Yale and 23 other universities details the importance of federal investment in research to America’s status as a global leader.

4 min read
Kline Tower and Krooon Hall

Photo by Daniel Havlat

Yale, other universities file brief in case aiming to preserve research funding that benefits America
0:00 / 0:00

Yale and 23 other research universities filed a legal brief Monday to aid judicial review in a lawsuit about the federal government’s freeze on research funding. The suit aims to preserve critical support that has fueled American innovation, economic growth, and key medical advances.

In an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the institutions argue that “terminating funding to universities jeopardizes American innovation and economic growth by severely limiting their ability to play their vital, longstanding roles in expanding scientific knowledge.”

The brief, related to a lawsuit filed by Harvard, explains that federal investment in scientific research at the nation’s universities over the past 80 years “has fueled American leadership at home and abroad, yielding radar technology that helped the Allies win World War II, computer systems that put humans on the Moon, and a vaccine that saved millions during a global pandemic.”

It argues that broad cuts to federal research funding endanger “this longstanding, mutually beneficial arrangement between universities and the American public.   

“Terminating funding disrupts ongoing projects, ruins experiments and datasets, destroys the careers of aspiring scientists, and deters investment in the long-term research that only the academy — with federal funding — can pursue, threatening the pace of progress and undermining American leadership in the process,” the brief states. 

Harvard sued on April 21 after the government announced that it had frozen more than $2.2 billion in research grants and contracts, contending the suspension of funding was “unlawful.” 

The funding freeze followed Harvard’s rejection of an April 11 letter in which the government demanded that the university undertake a series of sweeping policy changes or have its federal funding rescinded. Harvard refused the government’s demands, arguing that they violated the university’s First Amendment rights and academic freedom. 

The amicus curiae brief supports Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, which is a ruling in its favor without a trial. 

The other universities on the brief include both public and private institutions located across the United States: American University; Boston University; Brown University; California Institute of Technology; Colorado State University; Dartmouth College; Georgetown University; Johns Hopkins University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan State University; Oregon State University; Princeton University; Rice University; Rutgers University; Stanford University; Tufts University; University of Delaware; University of Denver; the University of Maryland, Baltimore; the University of Maryland, College Park; the University of Oregon; the University of Pennsylvania; and the University of Pittsburgh.     

The federal government began collaborating with the nation’s universities in the lead up to World War II as the country’s leaders realized the United States lagged scientifically behind its adversaries, according to the brief. It argues that federally supported research carried out by U.S. universities was pivotal to the Allies’ victory and helped to establish and maintain the country’s status as a global leader. 

The brief explains that the government selects funding recipients “based on scientific merit and their ability to create value for the American people. And in exchange, the country’s top scientists harness federal resources to drive gains in fields from nuclear power to biomedicine to artificial intelligence.”

The brief describes a range of breakthroughs that would not have occurred without federal funding, including the development of the Internet, treatments for cancer and heart disease, and the decoding of the human genome. It argues that federal funding for basic scientific research often facilitates future discoveries, offering as an example how research on pigment in butterfly wings led to the development of a revolutionary drug to treat lung cancer. 

Federal investment in universities is also a powerful driver of economic growth that facilitated the establishment of some of the nation’s largest companies, including Google, and enabled innovation by private industry, the brief argues. As of 2020, nearly a third of recently filed patents cited federally funded research, according to the brief. 

Even schools that do not experience direct cuts to federal research funding will suffer, the brief states, since scientists often collaborate across institutions and grants issued to one university frequently support research happening at others. 

“The withdrawal of federal support at even one institution is thus a blow to the entire ecosystem and deters the long-term investment necessary for scientific and technological progress,” the brief states. 

It also argues that the temporary freezing of federal funding has permanent effects because many research projects cannot be paused.

“If samples are spoiled, data lost, or clinical trials cut short, researchers will have to start at square one even if funding is restored, while other countries poach scientists and overtake American progress,” the brief argues.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to begin on July 21.