The Brink: There’s a lot of talk about the potential impact of a second Trump presidency, but when it comes to research, what do we know about potential priorities?

Grodsky: There are a lot of things that we don’t know yet; a lot of policies are determined by personnel, and we’ll have to see who he appoints. For example, in the last Trump presidency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) director stayed the same between the Obama and Trump presidencies. Potentially, we could see the NIH director stay the same again. The National Science Foundation (NSF) director has a fixed term, so we believe that person will stay on. Trump was pretty fast about appointing some people, but the science ones were a little slower last time.

During the last Trump administration, we saw budgets for science agencies go up due to a variety of factors, so that’s something we hope for again—but we won’t know that until next year and it’s a difficult budget environment in Washington.

We also know the research topics that he’s interested in: artificial intelligence, quantum science, the bioeconomy. These are not too different from Biden administration priorities, so there should be some continuity there. And those key topic areas map really well to some of BU’s research strengths.

The Brink: Based on what you’ve seen on the campaign trail—and during the previous Trump administration—are there areas that seem likely to be deprioritized?

Grodsky: Based on his last administration, I think the president-elect is less interested in supporting the arts and humanities. But what is interesting about that from the last [Trump] administration was, while the president proposed to eliminate those cultural agencies, Congress restored and increased their budgets. So, while he might not be interested in them, Congress still is.

The Biden administration made looking at racial equity issues in research a big priority, whether that meant making sure clinical trials had diverse populations enrolled or expanding the pool of people who consider science careers. I think Trump is less interested in racial equity, but he is interested in broadening the pool of people who conduct science by looking at rural communities and things like that.

The Brink: How much does what happens at the federal level in terms of, say, equity and inclusion in research, shape what BU does? How does the University maintain its areas of priority no matter what is happening at the federal level?

Grodsky: We want to make sure people understand, as we would with any administration, that all scholars should continue to do their research, and they should focus on the areas that matter to them and the scholarly questions they want to answer. Even if the federal government doesn’t place a priority on a particular topic of research, people can still propose that area of research and scientific agencies will still consider it. Every administration comes in with their own priorities, it doesn’t mean everything else falls away. As an example, in the previous Trump administration, there was a lot of concern about climate research—would agencies stop funding climate research? And the answer was no. They might have spoken about the research differently, maybe it wasn’t prioritized in the same way, but the research still continued. And that’s what we expect here too.

The Brink: There have been changes in the House and Senate, too, and different lawmakers will be elevated to new positions on key committees. Are there any changes in Congress that may have some impact on BU and its research?

Grodsky: We’re looking to see who will become the new chair for the House science committee. That’s unclear. On the Senate side, it’s somewhat clearer. The Senate’s appropriations committee, which determines spending priorities, is probably going to be led by Susan Collins of Maine. She’s a New Englander, so she understands our region and us. She’s a big supporter of the National Institutes of Health. She’s interested in Alzheimer’s research, for example, and has always supported robust funding for the NIH. That’s exciting. There are other New Englanders who will continue to be in important positions on the appropriations committee, even if they aren’t chairs, like Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who’s been a big supporter of the National Science Foundation and NASA.

There is another Senate committee, on commerce, which has jurisdiction over the National Science Foundation and NASA. Ted Cruz, of Texas, is expected to lead that committee. He’s traditionally focused on NASA issues, because of his home state and the importance NASA plays in Texas. He has, recently, been more vocal over his concerns about NSF support for diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, so we are carefully looking at that.

The Brink: There’s been discussion about potential new requirements on immigration and travel, as well as scrutiny of overseas involvement in research. How might they impact BU?

Grodsky: Beyond the actual funding for research is the environment in which research is conducted. In 2017, the Trump administration moved to restrict people from specific countries from entering the United States. But we know that science crosses borders, and big science needs all the best and brightest from around the world. That’s an important value for us as an institution, and that’s what we’ll be conveying to our leaders in Washington.

One of the things we saw in the previous Trump administration was the China Initiative, which focused on concerns about Chinese government entities inappropriately accessing American-funded research; he has signaled that he plans to continue that initiative. So that is something we will be watching carefully.

The Brink: No matter who the administration is, and whether or not a researcher agrees with their policies, how can they best advocate for themselves and the work they do at the federal level?

Grodsky: Lawmakers vote based on what they hear about, so we always encourage scientists to talk to their families, their communities, and their elected officials about their science and how it’s not possible unless there are investments made at the federal level. They should also talk about the value of their students who work in their labs, the next generation of scientists, and why it’s important to support their work. We encourage people to attend town hall meetings, write their members of Congress, write op-eds. But I actually think those kitchen table conversations with your friends and family matter—so they understand your science, and they are also talking about your work.

The Brink: Immediately after the presidential election result, we spoke with BU experts about how Trump might shape America in a variety of areas. One public health professor said they were most concerned about the delegitimization of experts. What’s your message on that?

Grodsky: We have a lot of support on Capitol Hill for science, on both sides of the aisle, and a lot of members of Congress see the value of basic science. We get requests every day from Capitol Hill for expertise. Policymakers are hungry for expertise, and they come to universities. BU faculty are eager to share their expertise, and they are particularly good at sharing their expertise with laypeople and using their research for good. We expect we will continue to get those requests on all kinds of topics.

The Brink: Presidential transitions can be a time of uncertainty. What lessons do you draw from previous changes in administration?

Grodsky: It’s important to pay close attention to what lawmakers are doing, not just what they’re saying. Sometimes researchers will hold themselves back or self-censor and say, “Well, I can’t pursue this area of research, because I’ve heard it’s going to be eliminated.” But until it’s gone, it’s not gone. And so the advice would be, keep doing your research and your science. And if a researcher wants to talk about the best way to position it, that’s a smart thing to do in any administration: How do you connect your work to the priorities of the day? We’re happy in Federal Relations to have that conversation with you. Investments in science are not going away, period. The nation values the work of researchers and, therefore, members of Congress value the work of researchers.

The Brink: How can your office help researchers during the next few months, and the next four years?

Grodsky: Our job is to be advocates for the University. We work with all administrations, all political parties, and we make the best case we can for science. And we’ve actually done a pretty good job: the NIH budget continues to grow, we see research expanding in a variety of areas, budgets have grown for the cultural agencies. We also strategize with faculty about how they can share their research more with policymakers on both sides of the aisle and connect their research to the priorities of the day and, again, we’ve had some successes there. You have a team in Washington that’s looking out for you, so just ask—we’re happy to do this and we’re easy to find.