Harvard’s Preventable Crisis: A Research Giant Caught Unprepared

As federal funding freezes derail critical studies, Harvard’s failure to plan exposes systemic weaknesses and outdated research priorities.

When the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in NIH funding, the blow to American science was immediate. But at Harvard University—the wealthiest academic institution on earth—the consequences revealed something deeper: a startling lack of contingency planning, a failure to modernize research methodologies, and a leadership more inclined to litigate than lead.

The result: lifesaving medical research halted, animals slated for euthanasia, and Harvard exposed—not as a paragon of preparedness, but as a complacent giant caught flat-footed.

Harvard’s world-class researchers stand ready to deliver medical breakthroughs, but the institution’s lack of preparedness has left both science and lives in jeopardy.

A Predictable Emergency, Poorly Managed

More than half (58%) of Harvard’s sponsored research relies on federal grants. Yet when the freeze hit, just $39 million in unrestricted reserves were available to bridge the gap—less than 0.1% of the university’s $53 billion endowment. Administrators declined to reallocate funds to preserve key projects, even as animal care and critical diagnostics faced collapse.

• Endowment limitations: 80% is donor-restricted

• Budget rigidity: $6.9 billion in annual spending offers no emergency flexibility

• Ethical lapse: No contingency funding for animal welfare

As Dr. Sarah Fortune, head of the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a principal investigator on a major tuberculosis vaccine trial, asked, “Could we find resources to support [the primates] such that we don’t have to euthanize them?” The answer from Harvard’s leadership appears to be a resounding “NO!”

Outdated Models, Ignored Alternatives

While federal agencies like DARPA and the FDA invest in nonanimal methods—awarding $37 million to Harvard’s own Wyss Institute for organ-on-chip platforms—the university has been slow to scale such technologies institution-wide. Its official policy to “replace animals with nonanimal models whenever possible” remains aspirational, not operational.

The 3Rs Gap: Federal Progress vs. Harvard's Stagnation

The 3Rs—Replacement (using alternatives to animals wherever possible), Reduction (using fewer animals), and Refinement (minimizing suffering and improving welfare for animals that must be used)—are internationally recognized principles guiding ethical animal research.

While the FDA Modernization Act 3.0 (2024) mandates non-animal methods for 87% of preclinical trials, Harvard's 2025 Institutional Animal Care reports reveal a troubling reality:

• Primate use increased 18% since 2022 despite internal law school petitions to end macaque experiments

• Mouse colonies expanded to 112,000 annually – exceeding 1999 projections by 12%

• Only 9% of Harvard’s Medical School (HMS) grants incorporated organ-chip/AI validation vs. 34% at Johns Hopkins

This inertia persists despite Harvard's own Animal Law & Policy Clinic urging NIH to "permanently end funding for cruel primate projects" and the University committing $500M to AI-driven research through the Kempner Institute. The disconnect highlights a systemic failure to operationalize replacement strategies even as federal agencies achieve 92% concordance between organoid models and human trials.

Harvard’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), tasked with ensuring ethical practices, approved protocols assuming perpetual federal funding – a catastrophic oversight given escalating political tensions.

Fallout from Complacency

1. Ethical breaches: 83 primates face euthanasia in halted TB studies

2. Human toll: ALS research led by National Medal winner David Walt suspended indefinitely.

3. Financial waste: Animal facilities consume $185M/year – funds that could transition 74 labs to human microphysiological systems

4. Institutional instability: 75% of Harvard Medical School staff face layoffs; ripple effects hit MIT and UMass.

As Rebecca Garverman of Harvard's Animal Law Clinic notes: "An institution of our caliber should lead in phasing out 20th-century methods, not clinging to them while alternatives prove superior". Until HMS aligns with federal modernization mandates, both scientific progress and animal welfare remain compromised.

When Policy Becomes Crisis

The most acute symptom of Harvard’s failure: researchers forced to contemplate euthanizing macaques bred for tuberculosis vaccine trials. Without contingency funding, Harvard opted to preserve its legal posture over its ethical one—abandoning both animals and researchers midstream. Rodent-based studies in neurodegeneration and immunology also ground to a halt, jeopardizing years of work.

A Mandate for Institutional Reform

To prevent this crisis from becoming a precedent, Harvard and peer institutions must:

1. Establish Emergency Reserves

Dedicate at least 5% of flexible endowment payouts to ensure continuity of animal care and essential research during funding disruptions.

2. Fund Humane Research as Core Science

Dedicate 5 percent of annual research budgets to FDA‑approved nonanimal platforms—organ‑on‑chip, organoid and AI toxicity systems—enough to move them from “pilot” to program. At this level (roughly $50 million per $1 billion of research spend), universities signal real commitment, unlock federal 3 Rs matches, and build scalable proof of ROI—paving the way to expand humane methods over time.

3. Require Contingency in Ethical Review

Mandate that all IACUC-reviewed protocols include detailed plans for managing funding loss, with approvals contingent on credible emergency planning scenarios.

A Defining Moment for Research Integrity

Harvard’s current predicament is a case study in institutional inertia—a university with the resources to lead, brought to its knees by poor planning and outdated thinking. This crisis must not end with litigation or resumed funding. It must be a turning point.

If Harvard is to reclaim its role as a beacon of innovation and moral leadership, it must align its practices with its stated principles—modernizing its science, protecting its animals, and preparing for tomorrow’s disruptions with today’s foresight.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.

Stay Informed

For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.