These university press releases are designed to project institutional value. They are not proof of what the institution has delivered or why it deserves continued public funding. Even if this work proves valuable, and I remain skeptical, nothing here explains why the funding needed to be concentrated at Harvard. That concentration is the product of a legacy NIH system that repeatedly sends public money to the same institutions. NIH should change its priorities and redirect future funding as science and public interests change. Harvard has no permanent entitlement to federal research money simply because it benefited from the previous system.
This news of major medical advancement from Harvard that will help Americans came out this week. Trump’s move this week was an effort to consolidate power so he decides who gets research funds, so he can cut Harvard research dollars.

Sep 20, 2026 · 1:03 PM UTC

6
3
33
3,803
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked
Replying to @LocasaleLab
Your post seems automatic knee-jerk reaction. On who: Dana-Farber, Mass General, MIT, not "just" Harvard. On skepticism: always good to have skepticism, but the paper is right here for you to read and critique specifically. (Please report back to all of us with the flaws you find: nature.com/articles/s41586-0…. Appreciate your expertise!) On funding: the paper shows funding sources. Doesn't support your 'concentrated' argument👇
198
Replying to @LocasaleLab
As a former administrator at several large schools I can attest to one thing the most important factor of any grant to a Univ. are the overhead charges that it first levy's on any grant-they take their payment whether successful or not
2
44
Replying to @LocasaleLab
With cancer research in general replicating at less than 40% who knows of this is real.
1
46
Replying to @LocasaleLab
A few decades ago, NIH funds were more widely distributed. University deans could submit proposals for funds that would provide seed $$ for pilot studies, and the NIH "Council" made certain that NIH funds were not being concentrated on one topic or in one university. But the "Council" decisions began to be challenged by wealthy institutions whose investigators received a good "peer review" score but not funded, and some NIH administrator decided the "deans funds" were not always used well. This has lead to the current research $$ consolidations. The entire NIH funding system needs to be re-thought.
1
40
Replying to @LocasaleLab
It’s simply a queue for who gets the funding, not an assessment of where solutions arise.
8