With the shutdown now entering its third week and the federal government largely stalled, the operational and financial shortcomings of the academic research enterprise are impossible to ignore. I wanted to do something a little different and take a beat to pause and process this chaotic, stressful, and confusing moment.

With the house on fire we find ourselves in three places at once: a.) carrying on with operations as if nothing has changed, driven by survival instincts and a desire for normalcy; b.) feeling a strong sense of duty to maintain existing dysfunctional structures—weathering setbacks, plugging holes, and protecting what already exists; and c.) paralyzed by uncertainty, unable to chart a clear path forward or make meaningful plans for the future. That combination—an existing unsustainable system, the pull of obligation, and immobilizing uncertainty—makes this a moment that is confusing, difficult to navigate, and, even maybe for some, an exhilarating opportunity to build better things. That’s a lot to make sense of; where does one even begin?

There has been a lot of ink spilled over what’s wrong with universities, accompanied by hollow proposals for reform. The problems are deep; some stem from federal policy, but many emerge from the institutions themselves. Over centuries, universities have accumulated an extraordinary range of roles—from teaching and credentialing to cutting-edge research, technology development, policy advising, and even managing investments and sports programs. Each of these missions brings its own resources, status, and stakeholders, creating a self-reinforcing bureaucratic complexity that is hard to reconcile in practice.

The result is a system that no longer balances these competing missions effectively and has begun to fracture openly under pressure. The consequences are evident in everyday work: scientists trapped in a publish or perish mentality, grant-writing, and administrative work, promising technologies stuck in tech-transfer hell, students completing degrees that do little to advance their careers, and innovators quitting out of frustration with calcified structures. Each of these iterations made sense at the time institutions evolved, but cumulatively they have produced a university enterprise that struggles to support research, teaching, and innovation simultaneously (Reinhardt, Unbundle the University, 2025, https://www.unbundle-the-university.com).

For most faculty, staff, department chairs, and school leaders, the reality is stark: we’re in the midst of historic change and yet there is no clear unifying strategy coming from the top. Further, bold institutional overhauls that take calculated risk seem unlikely. University executives have historically been risk-averse and have concentrated resources on high-profile projects, infrastructure, and other priorities that often don’t align with the needs of individual research units, like say to ensure they have resources for proper staffing. For units and departments already strapped for resources, this means they must navigate uncertainty with limited leverage, often in an environment where their ability to influence institutional priorities is minimal, which feels grim.

The question then becomes: how can units make meaningful decisions about what to preserve, what to let go, and where to invest effort in a way that actually strengthens their research mission, even within the constraints imposed by the federal government and their institutions themselves?

For most departments and schools, the options are limited and uncomfortable. You can’t change the priorities of the university’s top leadership, and research administrators are already stretched to the breaking point. Units must make deliberate choices about what to preserve, what to let go, and where scarce resources should be concentrated. This begins with protecting core research activities that produce fundable outcomes or sustain critical capabilities, while resisting the temptation to prop up low-value initiatives, maintain legacy processes, or follow mandates to “do your part” that divert time and energy from what truly matters.

Capacity limits must be recognized. Research administrators cannot be the heroic glue holding the system together; asking them to continue to absorb systemic dysfunction only accelerates burnout and failure. Units should maintain only the minimal structures that allow faculty and research teams to operate effectively, prioritizing proposal and pre-award support where it has the greatest impact. This is good time to be asking what is creating waste and what can we dump in the trash? Rather than thinking about what to do, identify what you can eliminate.

Department and school leaders must clarify roles, expectations, and responsibilities so that faculty understand how delays, missed deadlines, or behaviors such as pressuring staff to rush approvals or not providing sufficient lead time for purchases or contracts ripple across the unit, creating stress and operational bottlenecks for administrators already at capacity. Crucial conversations and agreements help ensure limited resources are used strategically and ad hoc decisions do not undermine unit effectiveness. How might units begin by holding structured conversations to set clear expectations, establish timelines, and define how faculty and staff responsibilities intersect to prevent operational bottlenecks? How can a unit be moved to perform as the same, unified team, rather than individual employee groups and research teams?

During this period of uncertainty, growth should be approached cautiously, with a focus on quality and relationship-building taking priority. Expanding programs, adding new initiatives, or chasing every available funding opportunity may feel necessary, but indiscriminate expansion spreads resources thin, increases administrative load, and can erode the quality of research and internal relationships.

Leaders should focus on a manageable set of strategic proposals, strengthen collaborations and external relationships, which take time to develop, and invest in pre-award infrastructure. Concentrating effort on what can be reliably executed will yield greater durability and better position the unit for the future than attempting to do everything at once. How might investigators be supported in seeking out atypical relationships and connections? What is the calculated ROI of pursuing non-government sources, given the additional time required to navigate their diverse application and submission processes, often with lower indirect cost recovery?

In short, the choices leaders make now revolve around accountability, clarity, and deliberate prioritization: protecting essential research, aligning faculty behavior with unit capacity, and concentrating effort where it will yield the most value. Every decision—from which proposals to support, to which initiatives to pause, to how growth is managed—carries real consequences for productivity, relationships, and the long-term strength of the unit. Even these small, deliberate first steps can position a unit for greater success later, creating a foundation that strengthens the research mission and allows for more effective action when broader opportunities or resources become available.

Until next time,

Sarah Trimmer, MPH
The Research Policy Dispatch

Federal policy is complex and constantly changing, but the Research Policy Atlas tracks it so you can focus on research.