Living and studying within the multicultural crossroads of Rome, Marshall has immersed himself in the world of politics and history from his undergraduate studies at John Cabot University, to his current master’s studies at the American University of Rome. With keen interests across the aforementioned fields -- among others – Marshall enthusiastically seeks a comprehensive understanding of the most pressing issues from a myriad of angles. As the world faces a whole host of trials and tribulations at a seemingly hastened pace, Marshall is determined to collaboratively arrive at a more constructive understanding of the world we live in – so that we may collectively act for a better tomorrow.
Marshall: Thank you so much for being here with us. Would you be willing to expand upon not just your academic profile, but your professional profile as well? And what sort of led you to become a scientist?
Yeah. So thank you both for having me and, agreeing to share my experiences. So I started, I started out wanting to do science based off several family members having health issues, specifically being impacted by cancer, and also rare genetic diseases. So this is kind of what led me on my path in undergrad and subsequently, after getting a degree in microbiology and Immunology. I worked at an immunotherapy company… where we worked on B-cell malignancies primarily. However, I didn’t really like the corporate lifestyle, so I went back to academia, and that’s where I got my master’s degree studying neurodevelopment toxicology… And so based off of that and some genetics, I’ve moved on to my PhD and I really wanted to focus, and join the lab that did cancer research, but also rare disease research. And so what we do here is we do cancer, but we also do, we’re starting to expand into rare disease research. And the reason why I’m doing this is I really just love the interdisciplinary nature of being in academia. And also I just want to dedicate my life to studying rare genetic diseases and how they can [be understood] when you study something so specific, how that can help broader disease application. So that’s kind of like the future dream is to run a lab that does that.
M: This goes quite hand in hand with that then. To what extent would you say that the Trump administration’s cuts to scientific research have impacted the field of your research and the work of American scientists?
So I’ll start personally and then I’ll expand out to, our scientific community here. I personally, this is we were already seeing downward trends in funding, so funding was already getting difficult to get. But now it’s, really uncertain and almost impossible, because you don’t know if the fellowship you’re applying for, like, I just applied for an NIH fellowship. You don’t know if it will. like. Even if people dedicate time to reading your application, even if you’ll be considered for funding. It was already really hard. It was already like you had less than, like 5% chance of getting it. So now it’s like. Not like there’s no chance. And our PiS are having issues even funding their own labs. So it’s kind of, this basically, kind of just this loss of almost like, how do we get money? Private foundations are also closing down and not doing this and not wanting not able to fund science. And someone like me that wants to study like rare diseases. And then the broader implications, people don’t want to fund that. Even though those are definitely impacting people’s lives and are useful to science as a whole, it’s really detrimental that we can get funding. And it’s just not I mean, you can’t get money and you can’t convince people to give us money. So it’s kind of like a problem of like, we’re not being valued anymore. And so the money is being taken away, and then therefore it’s like, what do you do? So personally, this is forced me to try to finish a PhD way earlier than I would normally be allowed to do. A PhD usually takes 5 or 6 years and now I have to finish in four. So, you know, it’s stuff like that where you’re like, there just isn’t money. You got to, you have to, to if you’re a grad student and scrape by and figure out what you’re going to do over summer because to ships are really hard to get. And so, at a grad student level, it’s really hard. And on the more professor level, because a lot of the universities take like half of the money off the top from the NIH to like, fund, I don’t know, like our facilities and stuff. That’s like one of the cuts that I think Dodge is trying to do there. Like, they’re trying to do so many different things, but that was one of them. And then the university is like, well, then we can’t like keep these labs open. So it’s it’s this thing where right now even our PiS are like we were. We’re all like, how are we going to have jobs? Because industry is falling apart to here. So it’s kind of like all scientific jobs are kind of dwindling. And so as a community, we’re we’re all freaking out, basically, like, how do we how do we, especially those that have been in the field for so long, how do we go all our lives with, you know, sacrificing, you know, personal relationships, health and then be told that all of our, our time and energy and care is not valued and isn’t going to be funded. And it’s stuff that matters. Like it helps people. So it’s it’s really it’s just devastating to the scientific community. And a lot of us are like, I guess we like teach because even that’s not even secure or we move out of the country. So that’s kind of where the where the state of the field is, is in regards to finances and how to survive an administrative administration that is actively trying to destroy, this part of our, our or, I guess, our country and economy. And, you know, it’s kind of hard to say because it impacts so many different areas.
Sterling: I have a quick follow-up question, if I may. So at the beginning of your response, you mentioned that there’s been this downward trend in funding. When did this begin? Because has it been just within the first hundred days of the administration, or has it been ongoing throughout?
It’s been it’s been longer than that. It also has to do with the cost of goods. So when you’re doing like the NIH is keeping up, wasn’t keeping up with the cost of how much it is to pay us pay for goods. And so they were keeping the pay line really low. So you’re keeping the pay line like it hasn’t changed since the 90s. And inflation is insane and people cost more to exist. It’s like that’s where the downward trend is. Like they’re not giving any more. They’ve also like the Bush administration did a little bit taking away. And then you have like the influx between different administrations that are like, I’m going to take a little way and give a little bit back. And it’s like that. Those combination of things have been going on for like the last 30 years. I hope I answered your question.
M: So, with the work that you do, specifically with what you’re researching and what is being researched at your lab, if you could give perhaps more context to what an acceleration of funding loss could potentially lead to, or if there have been discussions to that extent?
Yeah. So I’ll start on like the day to day, I guess roughly. So a lot of things like that we would normally do to, really like expand on our project and do follow up studies you can’t perform. It’s costly or like if we have like big like genomics or informatics studies. And now we can’t really afford to do them because they cost like they cost several thousand dollars. And you have to pay for computational power. So you have to like make do with, you know, the tools you have that are really cheap and effective and then you can’t really dive into what’s happening on the pathway level. So you’re kind of like, you’re doing the best you can, but you can’t really expand out, if that makes sense. And so you can’t, you may not be able to do a lot of the experiments that you normally could be able to do that would really help us drive home your point and help expand what the field really knows. You can’t really, you can’t have PhD students actually stay as long as you would need them to do, to be here. You can’t. You might if you’re a smaller lab like ours. because we’re really tiny. The bigger our labs can, like, crush you, and then you might never even get your paper published. So it can be like long term impacts of all these smaller labs that focus on, you know, just mentoring like 2 or 3 scientists at a time get crushed by the huge labs that are funded through external sources like Howard Hughes, which is like a huge institute. Not many people can get into it. So you have like, mostly these big labs that can still like, you know, crank out papers and like, crush the little guy. So it kind of makes it inequitable in the long run. And that feeds into a whole other issue of inequality and inequity in science in general. But it just like crushes the little guy is trying to just produce and, you know, come up with good science. And then I guess on more of like an institutional level, you just have a loss of a lot of labs that don’t have a ton of external funding that isn’t through the NIH. So it’s just like a slowly like, I don’t I think like most of the labs would just be converted to those PiS are just teaching instead of running a lab because they can’t afford to in the long term. So those are like the actual impacts to a lab. If you can’t do the experiments you need to do. It’s harder to publish papers. And then you start to have just the decrease in, you know, the range and diversity of research because people can’t keep their labs open. And then another big impact is we can’t recruit PhD students. So now instead of admitting like 15 or 20, we’re meeting like two, or like, maybe we skip next year and you’re like, what the hell? This is like people’s futures. This is people that obviously deserve to fulfill their dreams. So it’s all a broad impact of it trickles down to everyone and then, of course, to the economy. Because we’re a huge we make we buy a lot of shit. So it helps the economy a lot. For lack of better term. It’s just we consume a lot and we really feed into the economy. And now it’s like tanking it. Hope that help to answer your question.
S: I was curious, if I could ask, because you’ve talked about the impacts on scientists and students, could these budget cuts also impact the trials and kind of disbursement of medicine as well? Or is that not really part of the concern and of the impacts of the cuts?
It definitely could impact those. I think that It a lot of things that we do and there’s like a big move towards this like mentality of like team scientists where you get together like I’m the the geneticist and then you have like, I’m the neuroscientist and you have like the clinician that’s like, I’m with the patients. And, that can really disrupt that workflow. If you have like smaller labs that are really niche and focused and really good at one thing like our lab is and they can’t they’re like losing money and they can’t really participate in team science. So that’s one aspect. And then if you don’t, have a lot of NIH grants, sometimes you can’t do translational research and do drug discovery. Because a lot of those labs rely on that, not just private foundations. So it has like a broader impact that will eventually go out to the patients. And that’s where, like, I’m concerned because there’s a lot of rare diseases and it’s like the federal government’s like, no, no, no, don’t worry about that. It’s like, excuse me, that’s thousands of people. And, you know, it impacts everyone if you don’t if you start taking away these things. The NIH funds most of science, most biology in the US. So it’s just it’s going to impact so many different things we work on developing every year. It will impact all the little labs doing foundational research, like the basic stuff that will feed into like maybe even vaccine development and stuff like that, or will be factored into chemotherapies, which is like a whole other part of my lab that works on doing the small molecule analysis to try to understand how to treat cancers. Like that impacts people and it impacts patients, and it impacts your ability to work together and collaborate. Because we can’t exist. We can’t. We can’t. If you can’t do an experiment and then share those results with the scientist. Or if somebody gives you a good idea at a conference and you can’t come back and actually execute it, you’re going to have impacts. And it like clinical trials are really important. So those feed in between like a basic research lab like mine, a translational research lab, and then the clinic, all those that chain gets screwed up at some part because of offset NIH funds.
[Another point is that] a lot of our undergraduate researchers are also on NIH fellowships, like a chunk of my research team that are undergraduates are losing their funding. And it also has to do with the Dei programs being destroyed and being like, we’re not allowed to put diversity, equity and inclusion in our grants anymore. So stuff like this, it’s not just it’s not just patients, it’s just not other scientists, but it’s the future scientists we’re destroying. We’re really destroying their chances. So that’s something that, like, definitely keeps me up at night. Besides the patients and my future is that I all these wonderful students I can’t like. They would have good mentors and be able to see a prosperous future. Are getting their futures are getting kind of like poofed away. So it’s another whole other thing is like it like bleeds out everywhere, bleeds out to the community. We can’t do community outreach events and all this. And just like I think people forget, like, it’s not just like the science and the clinicians and us all working together to cure something, but a lot of us work with undergraduate researchers, high school students, and then go out into the community and educate the community on different scientific topics. It’s expansive. It it just, like devastates a lot of facets.
M: Thank you so much for adding that. It paints the best possible picture of what this impact is. Which leads to the the final question, which is that given these cuts, given the impact that they will have, given how they’ve impacted you personally, but also, as you’ve pointed out, the sort of totality of scientific research within the US, from practitioners to patients to those trying to make their way into the field. Have you or, anyone you know, considered changes in their professional careers in response to these cuts? And perhaps more specifically speaking, have you or anyone you know, heard of efforts in Europe to attract American scientists in light of these cuts?
Yeah, so I haven’t heard of many people deciding to change fields. They’ve thought about I know a lot of people are talking about just going into education, but we also have a whole defunding of education. So there’s like not a lot of options when you’re like, especially if you’re leaving a PhD and you’re like, I can it’s like, okay, I don’t know what to do. I know a lot of people are going into policy now. But I’m like, good luck with that. Given the situation. I know personally I’ve been recruited by other countries, like I get targeted ads a lot for like, Denmark and Norway. And yeah, I think a lot of us are considering leaving because it’s it’s we don’t there’s not funding. And our jobs are reliant on this, even especially with the industry, like biotech industry tanking right now. It’s kind of like, okay, Now we don’t have even that to fall on. And there’s only so many policy jobs. I yeah, but I definitely get specifically targeted. And I know other people that get targeted by ads like come Norway has all these universities or Denmark is like also definitely targeting us or like eyes like, here you go. I heard you say us is not funding you. So, that’s definitely a thing a lot of people are considering, especially like people like me, that are going to be transitioning out of the PhD life soon. So it’s a lot of people thinking like that or a lot of people that are just like, I guess I’ll just have to hop from job to job, or I’ll just like, like fight for a postdoctoral position. Opposition. And so then it gets more cutthroat. And it’s kind of like one of those things where a lot of people are like, well, apply like anywhere in the US, because we all have family here. But a lot of us are like, what’s what the fuck? Sorry. Like, it’s just like, what’s the point if these repercussions usually have long lasting impacts? So a lot of us are like just going to apply anywhere in the world and just, you know, hope that what we’re seeing in Europe is they’re like, maybe going to plot out out money to like, recruit us, that that will actually be true and that we’ll be able to have more opportunity in Europe or in Australia or New Zealand. So it’s kind of like all of us are just like anywhere, I guess, because there’s no jobs. (..) Yeah, a lot of us are just considering leaving or, like, fighting tooth and nail just to get, you know, a job that probably isn’t, you know, what we would be making before or is it something we actually want to do?
S: I have a few [questions] that are jumping between topics. So, I might just ask you one after the other, and let you answer in between. So, one of them kind of goes back to this DEI and equitable education that is important for the United States… Do you, and I’m 22, I’m very young and new to my education, so I came out of the COVID college time period, where there was this very clear generational gap of education, so I’m curious, do you think this administration may continue this generational gap in education, specifically in the scientific field as well? Do you foresee this, or is that not really something?
I think I think I can kind of see. I think, I think I want to ask a clarifying question. Yeah. So mostly, are you referring to, how the administration is going to be treating like, how my educational experience was probably different than the new generation and the events of everything and how that’s specifically being impacted?
S: Yeah. So you were discussing how some of your undergraduate students are not going to be granted grants to participate in scientific research. Do you think that this could lead to an even smaller pool of individuals to participate, leading to a shortage of scientists in some way or something along these lines?
Yeah, I could, I could foresee that maybe in the next five years, because right now a lot of the students are, like, committed on the path, or in a lot of students think they’re pre-med, and then they’ll be they’ll realize, you know, no, thank you. Or they can’t get into med school here or anywhere. So they switch to, you know, like I’m going to be a scientist. But, yeah, like, a lot of these opportunities, they’re it’s mostly like, we’re all trying to. It’s hard to say what’s going to happen, because we’re all trying to fight and use appropriate language with the NIH to get money for them, and which is honestly been a challenge personally for me. But, yeah, I think it’s going to be a totally different experience where it’s going to lead people to, you know, maybe not want to go to college, or people not wanting to even touch Stem as a field. Specifically the biology. I think engineering might be okay. (..) Chemistry will definitely be impacted, I think, because so much of it interplays with us and the EPA, the FDA, all of those things are like chemistry and biology, pretty much. And I think the only ones that are safe is engineering. So I think we might have like an influx of engineers. And then people wanted to, you know, maybe do marketing or something. It’s hard to say where they’re going to go because a lot of, you know, a lot of students are actually really like biology. And I don’t know what they’re going to do with this if there’s no prospect of a job afterwards.
S: Okay, and then my next question. Earlier you were talking about how larger institutes, I think [one] was called Howard Hughes, I’m less familiar with these big clinics or scientific research [institutes], having the ability to keep funding things while smaller institutes are unable. Do you think that this could possibly lean towards the retrenchment of scientific research, where it’s just funded by businesses rather than the government? More so, do you think it’s trying to pivot this way, or what do you think is the underlying intention of DOGE or the NIH cuts?
I think they’re trying to privatize a lot of stuff. And basically the impact is going to be anyone that isn’t like in the upper class is not going to have opportunity. So it’s really causing a discrepancy in who has the potential opportunity. And that’s why we have government. Or at least that was my perception of why we have government is to try to like in an ideal world, we would try to help each other and to some extent and give some opportunity. And so I think it removes a lot of that. And I don’t think you can rely on the kindness of the 1% to fund us. Like they’re not going to do that. I mean, like you could they there’s already it’s it’s just going to be privatized. And then that forces like certain type of research, if that makes sense, like it’s constricting versus like if you have a federal grant, if as long as you’re hitting your targets, it’s like they don’t give a shit because you’re doing good science, you’re targeting, you’re hitting all your goals. You said what you’re going to do. Cool. You’re going to like move on and add value to that and like advance science in that area versus like you could if you’re being privatized, you’re being forced to go a certain direction. You have stakeholders. You have to like, cater to them versus usually if it’s federally funded, yeah, you have to get approved and you have to go through the long grant process. But it’s not as restricting where you’re like suddenly like being narrowed into, like, you can only do this. I think Howard Hughes isn’t very much like that. They’re like, here’s five years of funding. Go do your research. Just report back to us. But if more there’s more companies that do this privatize research, you’re going to definitely like have just more like almost like businesses potentially. But even then it’s like it’s hard to say what’s going to happen. But I think privatizing research isn’t going to be helpful. And it’s going to be less inclusive of, of all, almost all people. It’s kind of like not useful in my opinion, if you can’t bring everybody to the table.
M: Real quick, before we wrap things up here. You noted there, especially when it comes to federal funding, this will potentially lead to more engineers. Or perhaps people will be disincentivized from pursuing chemistry, or perhaps biology. To what extent would you say it is fair to characterize these cuts, then, in a federal sense, removing the private sector from this equation as not defunding the scientific research per se, but as an effort in forcing [scientific research] in a certain direction?
I feel like… I feel like it’s hard to say what what to anticipate, really, especially when things don’t really actually make logical sense. So it seems like perhaps there’ll be, I don’t really foresee a lot of private funding. But I know from experience and from colleagues that if you’re funded by a foundation or like a like a family, the families that will literally throw money at a disease, it’s a totally different feeling of doing research. And it like it’s really driven by certain directions sometimes. As for like defunding things, I think it’s a combination, really. You’re defunding general science that is going to help, you know, maybe lead to more insight for translational research. It’s just I think it’s like the combination, really, if it gets down to it, it’s you’re probably going to have more privatized research that’s being, like skewed towards a specific niche. And then a lot you can’t do like a lot of research will be like, oh, how does this expand just beyond my disease? And that’s like what makes the science powerful is if you’re able to, like, increase the impact. So I think it will kind of force like that mindset of how can we like, how can we not just like, focus on one thing and make the world better for that specific issue, but like to all these other issues? I think it just narrows it. And then also defunds a lot of science that, is really hard to get money for sometimes or that is always reliant on the NIH know who’s going to pay for that? Who’s going to fund that?
M: With one final parting question, what in this story, in this moment that we’re living through, as it not only impacts the US, but, of course, impacts all of us around the world; what is it that you would like to emphasize the most in relation to all of this? And I mean, I’m not asking, of course, for you to say what you think is the most important, but would you would like to emphasize?
Yeah, it’s really hard to say what thing I’d like to emphasize most. (..) I, I feel like it’s really. (..) A cacophony of bullshit that we’re experiencing. And it impacts not just. And we all know it doesn’t just impact the US. It impacts everybody globally. So, I think right now, (..) Living in the US, it’s kind of like I think the thing that I wish to emphasize is like, you know, there’s a reason why we’re funded and we global. It’s like it’s not just impacting people and people’s health. It’s not just impacting my career. It’s impacting, you know, it’s impacting all the future research that’s going to happen that’s impacting the opportunity for individuals. It’s impacting the economy globally, and it’s also impacting our ability to respond to diseases as we go. So I think like it’s really critical that you fund something that impacts the community, the economy, education and health. It hits everything. So that’s kind of where I would like to emphasize a lot of us don’t want to leave the US because there’s a lot of great research here. Like, also, this is our home. Like we don’t want to leave. But, you know, if there’s no opportunity, and we’re not valued and people don’t want to listen to us when we’ve dedicated our life to this, it’s kind of like, well, we’re not going to, you know, belabor our points. Point. You know, it’s like hitting your head against a wall.
Related
Author: Marshall Everett
Living and studying within the multicultural crossroads of Rome, Marshall has immersed himself in the world of politics and history from his undergraduate studies at John Cabot University, to his current master’s studies at the American University of Rome. With keen interests across the aforementioned fields -- among others – Marshall enthusiastically seeks a comprehensive understanding of the most pressing issues from a myriad of angles. As the world faces a whole host of trials and tribulations at a seemingly hastened pace, Marshall is determined to collaboratively arrive at a more constructive understanding of the world we live in – so that we may collectively act for a better tomorrow.
