Students are unsung heroes of university research, and federal research funding cuts hurt them most
One of my doctoral students recently graduated, and with his experience as a student researcher, he secured a job in a research lab at a large information technology company.
That's part of how federal research funding makes an impact: it provides crucial support to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs.
Sharp reductions in funding to the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are in the news, and much more depends on their funding than the creation of knowledge. We risk not only lost research, but also lost training for highly skilled labor, with repercussions that may never be fully remedied.
I'm an associate professor in the College of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State, and I frequently encounter misconceptions when I talk about what it's like to perform research as a professor. Many people think that professors do all of the work of research, with students having minimal or no involvement. Within STEM (science technology, engineering, and mathematics), that's far from the truth. Modern research is labor-intensive and requires the involvement of many people, especially students.
It's common for a research-active professor to have several students working with them on projects. Professors know the landscape of their subject area and they use that knowledge to identify productive research topics, to guide students through developing them, and to help them create impactful results.
Students run experiments, collect samples and data, and analyze results, among other tasks. Professors sometimes say that their students run individual projects, while the professor provides strategic leadership and runs the lab.
Research grants pay for the expenses of research, and student salaries and tuition are two of the largest expenses. In the grants I receive, they're the largest direct costs by far. Many STEM graduate students, especially doctoral students, are employed as research assistants. These positions pay a small salary to perform research and typically cover tuition and benefits too. Without that financial support, these students wouldn't be able to devote five or six years to the research activities and training necessary for a doctoral degree.
Toward workforce development, research is one of the most effective — and personally rewarding –ways that we can train students for future STEM careers. Student researchers learn how to tackle difficult problems for which there are no answer keys, because research is the process of creating the answers.
They learn to work in collaborative teams, give presentations, write well, and integrate feedback on their work. All of this happens in a hands-on, open-ended setting that course-based learning does not provide.
The benefits to students exceed those, even. Graduate student researchers build professional networks by collaborating and attending conferences. Undergraduate researchers get intellectual enrichment beyond what coursework can provide, as well as a preview of what graduate school is like.
Anecdotally, regardless of their career paths, many student researchers also report high satisfaction with their work. The knowledge that one researcher creates might be modest, but the aggregation of that knowledge –across many researchers, over time — improves our understanding of the natural world and produces new technologies to benefit humanity.
Replacing academic research with corporate research is sometimes floated as an option, but this is infeasible for multiple reasons. One is the distinction between applied research and basic research. Applied research is focused on creating knowledge specifically to enable new products and services.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
In contrast, basic research expands what humanity knows or what we can do, both in a broad sense. Applied research relies upon people trained in an environment of basic research, where they have the freedom to think creatively and study fundamental problems.
Research universities provide that environment.
Beyond that distinction, the costs of training researchers make it unlikely for companies to provide the same experience universities are built to offer. Doctoral students spend several years learning how to perform research, and during that equivalent time in a company, they would contribute little—if anything—to the company's bottom line. Except at a few very large companies, creating a robust learning environment doesn't fit into industry structure or goals, while universities are designed around education.
I already see the repercussions of uncertainty in the funding landscape: one of my master's students lost a research assistantship that he expected to receive this fall. This is one example among many of a growing disruption in our universities' abilities to produce skilled researchers. This production can withstand small disruptions, but a large one like we're witnessing puts it in serious peril.
We depend on student researchers for many advancements in science and technology, and they depend on us to support their work. Pennsylvania's legislators and our representatives in Congress can play their role by standing up for NSF and NIH funding.
Shomir Wilson is an associate professor in the College of Information Sciences and Technology at the Pennsylvania State University, where he leads the Human Language Technologies Lab. He received a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Maryland in 2011, and has worked or studied at nine universities across four continents. He writes from State College. Readers may email him at shomir@gmail.com and follow him on Bluesky at @shomir.bsky.social.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
14 minutes ago
- Medscape
How Myeloma Plays Hide and Seek With CAR T Cells
TOPLINE: G protein-coupled receptor, class C, group 5, member D (GPRC5D) loss after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) occurs through biallelic genetic inactivation and hypermethylation-driven epigenetic silencing. Among 10 patients who relapsed, eight showed GPRC5D loss, while two had mixed expression. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) analysis on MM samples from 10 patients who relapsed after GPRC5D CAR T-cell therapy. Analysis included CD138+ MM cells isolated from bone marrow samples with purity exceeding 80%, with tumor samples sequenced at 100× coverage and matched normal samples at 30× coverage. Investigators performed targeted bisulfite sequencing to evaluate methylation status of GPRC5D regulatory regions across seven MM cell lines, with library construction and sequencing conducted by specialized institutes. Patient characteristics included median age of 57.5 years (range, 44-66 years), equal gender distribution, and 90% having high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. TAKEAWAY: Genetic alterations were identified in three cases: one with homozygous deletion in GPRC5D gene, another with biallelic loss in regulatory regions, and a third with homozygous deletions in both TNFRSF17 and GPRC5D after sequential anti-B-cell maturation antigen and anti-GPRC5D CAR T-cell therapies. Multiple hypermethylation sites were present in transcriptional regulatory elements of GPRC5D gene in five posttreatment MM samples, with no genetic changes detected at GPRC5D locus in seven cases. GPRC5D expression showed inverse correlation with methylation levels in regulatory regions of MM cell lines, with azacitidine treatment inducing GPRC5D messenger RNA and protein expression in hypermethylated MM cell lines. All 10 patients achieved complete response or better as best response with median time to best response of 2.5 months (range, 0.5-15.3 months), though median time to disease progression was 15.9 months (range, 3.0-26.5 months). IN PRACTICE: 'Our findings highlight that biallelic genetic inactivation and hypermethylation-driven epigenetic silencing are key mechanisms contributing to GPRC5D loss and treatment resistance,' wrote the authors of the study. SOURCE: The study was led by Mingshan Niu, Blood Diseases Institute, Xuzhou Medical University in Xuzhou, China. It was published online in Blood. LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the structural variant deletions on chromosomes may be missed by 100× WGS in patients with a clone size less than 20%. The limit of detection for quantitative polymerase chain reaction ranged from 16 to 50 copies per reaction, indicating sensitivity limitations of these detection methods. Additionally, genetic alterations in the GPRC5D locus could either be acquired after CAR T-cell therapy or selected from preexisting clones, necessitating more sensitive detection methods for dynamic monitoring. DISCLOSURES: The research received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82270181) and the Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (21KJA320005). The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Second Brain Alert: Gut Tags Your Nutrients
At first glance, 'trusting your gut' may seem intuitive, irrational, or even unscientific. However, science confirms that the digestive system is indeed 'sensitive'; it contains its own autonomic network, known as the enteric nervous system, comprising approximately 100 million nerve cells. A study in Nature revealed that the gut's own enteric nervous system can not only detect nutrients but also distinguish between them, showing that it is far smarter than once believed. New research led by KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, researchers from the Translational Research in GastroIntestinal Disorders team shows that neurons in the intestinal wall respond to specific nutrients in a targeted manner. The study conducted on the intestinal tissue of mice showed that the intestine can differentiate between sugars, proteins, and fats. Each nutrient activates its own neurochemical network through reactions involving specific neurons. Using calcium imaging in the mouse jejunum, researchers found that nutrients activate specific groups of enteric neurons, but not directly. The epithelium, the surface tissue on the inside of the intestine, plays a key role in the detection of different nutrients. The tissue uses serotonin, a well-known neurotransmitter, to send signals to the nervous system. Signals move from the villus epithelium to the myenteric plexus and then to the submucosal plexus, revealing a clear communication pathway across the intestinal walls. 'What we're seeing is that the enteric nervous system doesn't just respond to pressure or stretching. It works in a much more targeted way depending on the specific nutrients in the intestine,' said Candice Fung, postdoctoral researcher and first author of the study. 'The precision with which the nervous system can differentiate between sugars, proteins, and fats proves how refined and intelligent this system is.' The LENS (Laboratory for Enteric Neuroscience) research group, led by Pieter Vanden Berghe, PhD, specialises in light microscopy for imaging live cells and tissues. Scientists use fluorescent markers that make neurons light up when activated. Thus, the processes in the enteric nervous system can be visualised in real time. 'When we talk about a 'gut feeling,' we shouldn't be dismissive when it comes to our digestive system and enteric nervous system. This research demonstrates a certain form of intelligence in the gut. This is why people sometimes refer to it as the 'second brain' or 'little brain.' But if you ask me, the enteric nervous system is too important and too sophisticated to be considered the 'little brother,'' said Berghe. This story was translated and adapted from MediQuality.


Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Behavioral Therapy as First-Line for Bladder Control in PD?
TOPLINE: Structured behavioral therapy focused on pelvic floor muscle exercise was noninferior to treatment with solifenacin for alleviating overactive bladder symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), new research showed. Because it was also associated with fewer side effects, especially falls, researchers recommended the behavioral therapy as a first-line treatment option. METHODOLOGY: This 12-week randomized noninferiority trial was conducted between 2018 and 2023 within four Veterans Affairs healthcare systems in the US. Overall, 77 patients diagnosed with PD and overactive bladder symptoms, as measured with an International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire overactive bladder module (ICIQ-OAB) symptom score ≥ 7, were included. All participants (mean age, 71 years; 84% men; 90% White individuals) were randomly assigned to receive either pelvic floor muscle exercise-based behavioral therapy with urge suppression training (n = 36) or 5 mg solifenacin daily with need-based titration up to 10 mg daily (n = 41). The primary outcome was ICIQ-OAB symptom score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ICIQ-OAB bother and quality of life scores and drug-related adverse events. TAKEAWAY: At 12 weeks, clinically significant improvement in ICIQ-OAB scores was observed across both treatment groups within a noninferiority margin of 15% (drug vs behavioral therapy: mean ICIQ-OAB score, 5.8 vs 5.5; P = .02). Both groups also had a reduction in symptom frequency, which was associated with a reduction in bother scores and an improvement in overactive bladder-related quality of life. Compared with the behavioral therapy group, the solifenacin group had a greater number of adverse events, including dry mouth (P = .002) and pain or burning during urination (P = .03). They also had a greater number of falls (6 vs 0). IN PRACTICE: 'The finding of increased falls in the solifenacin therapy group reinforces the need to carefully consider the risk-benefit ratio of medications for urinary symptoms, especially given the increased risk of falls among persons with PD. Results of this study suggest that behavioral therapy is an effective treatment option for persons with PD,' the investigators wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Camille P. Vaughan, MD, Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology in the Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. It was published online on July 14 in JAMA Neurology. LIMITATIONS: The follow-up duration was limited to 12 weeks, restricting insight into longer-term outcomes. The cohort predominantly had male participants, reducing the generalizability of the findings, and the study relied on patient-reported data. Additionally, a higher dropout in the drug group led to nonrandom missing data, potentially biasing comparisons. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by a grant from Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development. Two investigators reported receiving grants from various sources during the conduct of the study. The other nine investigators reported having no relevant financial relationships. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.