1,079 signatures
Research
- 67,382 supporters taking action on this topic.
- 4 petitions started in this community.
Start a petition
Explore 4 petitions in Research
Topics related to Research
Stories and updates from petition starters
Victories in Research
10 supporters are talking about petitions related to Research!
UAs polymer program has recently been rated #1 in world. (Not the state, not U.S., but the World!)
Just 2 years ago, the school began an undergraduate polymer engineering major which is the main reason my son chose to go there. There has been a lot of media coverage recently concerning polymer research and jobs in the future in the Akron area. It seems a bad time to cut faculty, research and programs in such an integral aspect of the university's future growth.
On a side note, if the athletic department is responsible for such a large part of the current debt, why are you looking at important academic departments/programs to make your cuts?
Lisa supported: Preserve UA's polymer program for the futureUA is a powerhouse for its polymer engineering. To reduce its key components and faculty in belief that in there is a greater benefit in the long term is appalling. As an engineering student at the university, I am beyond disappointed and no longer feel supported by the university. Constant changes and drastic decisions do not promote a promising future for students.
Gianna supported: Preserve UA's polymer program for the futureThis is more than about faculty cuts; it’s about the future of our department and its students. Retrenchment threatens not only our ability to complete our degrees but also the long-term reputation of the program. Prospective students will hesitate to join a department that has lost half its faculty and resources, which could lead to a self-fulfilling death-spiral.
We understand that these are difficult decisions for university leadership given the financial situation, but the stakes are incredibly high for us as students. This could not just be an academic setback—it’s a threat to our career prospects and livelihoods.
I also understand some alumni and faculty feel our protests appear aggressive. Their discomfort in seeing signs and posters pales in comparison to what we stand to lose. Many of them and the leadership are mid-career professionals who will land on their feet regardless of the outcome, but we as students don't have the same safety net.
Brandon supported: Preserve UA's polymer program for the futureThe University of Akron has proven time and time again that their “restructuring” and “retrenching” of departments severely cripples or terminates them completely. During Covid, the entire Theatre Department was gutted and it’s a shell of its former self with students looking elsewhere for opportunities since Akron is no longer a viable option for such a career path. UA shows its community, staff, current students, and most importantly its future students that it cannot keep its promises to keep departments viable and functional after these drastic changes. UA may see the immediate benefit after making these changes (and may even decide to cut more because of these benefits) but the lasting ramifications will be detrimental to everyone. UA tells us that this change is good, but it has shown us before that the students and the community loses when these changes happen. Actions speak louder than words. UA, if you care like you say you do, you’ll listen to the voices and actions of your community and students.
Jacen supported: Preserve UA's polymer program for the futureForever grateful for the research experience I got here in high school. Now in college taking organic chemistry, I understand the great, groundbreaking research being done in this program. Save academia, support students and faculty!!
Angela supported: Preserve UA's polymer program for the futureEven if federal funds are being mismanaged in the sciences, the solution is not to slash indirect cost rates. Academic and research institutions are not prepared to handle such large scale and immediate budget cuts. As a computational chemistry PhD candidate, I rely on the staff that maintains our high performance computing cluster - without that resource I am unable to perform my calculations. My classmates rely on core facilities to conduct their research as well. If the institution I'm at loses this much funding, they will be forced to lay off staff and accept fewer PhD students. Post-docs rely on their funding and are not guaranteed their job if it falls through. Many of these post-docs are on visas that require them to be working, so this could potentially impact the ability of highly skilled researchers to stay in the US. Overall, the drastically reduced indirect cost cap at the NIH will set research in ALL science, engineering, and medical fields back years
Emma supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)I use core facilities funded by IDC costs for my research project, which focuses on studying the genetics of blindness. Cutting these funds will impair my research and discoveries that can be used in the future to help treat blindness.
Daniel supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)I am a postdoctoral researcher at an institute that survives mostly through IDC. Without the institute, I have no place to grow as a researcher, conduct experiments that focus on understanding perception in visually impaired individuals, or even a desk and computer I can sit at.
Sofia supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)The lab I work for studies proteins that contribute to heart disease. Heart disease has been the leading cause of death globally for a century, so I never thought I would have to question if we'd have the resources to continue our work. We rely on institutionally owned and operated equipment--items like electron microscopes that are far too large and expensive for any one lab to own. Indirect costs contribute to the purchasing and maintenance of these items, not to mention the basic functioning of every lab regardless of research topic. Research in the United States is absolutely dependent on much higher indirect cost rates than 15%. Allowing this cap to exist will change the research landscape of the entire world overnight. You should be compelled to do everything you can to prevent this from happening.
Anna supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)Every $1 invested in NIH has an ROI of over $2.40. Beyond the monetary benefit, NIH is responsible for life-saving work, and slashing indirect funds is nothing short of a literal death knell to the American people, and to the USA's health and economy.
The goal shouldn't be blanket cost cutting—it should be ensuring U.S. medical dominance, protecting taxpayer investments, and preventing reckless cost-cutting that backfires in the long run.
At the NIH's current budget, $1 is all it takes to keep science and the best scientists and healthcare in the USA. The tax investment is small, but the rewards and returns for the economy and health are arguably infinite.
If the USA was a company and these cuts were implemented, the board would fire that CEO within a few quarters—not because the cuts saved money, but because they killed future growth, led to brain drain, and weakened the company’s market position.
If Pfizer cut R&D by 50%, it would report higher profits this year, but its drug pipeline would collapse in 5 years, and competitors would overtake if they lose indirect funding for labs, buildings, and IT, facilities engineers, maintenance crews, and basic HR structures.
If Tesla stopped investing in EV batteries by shutting down gigafactories from indirect cost cuts, it might save money this quarter, but BYD or Toyota would replace them as market leaders when they leave a hole in the market.
The same logic applies to U.S. medical research.
If you gut funding in high-yield medical projects, you lose the long-term advantage and will lose decades of progress that cannot be recovered in any relative amount of time. Our grandchildren and their kids will still suffer from this decision if it is not repealed.
If you freeze talent pipelines, your best scientists leave.
If you remove key resources, lawsuits, PR disasters, and public health failures costs go up dramatically in the long run.
We should continue to invest heavily in NIH and critical research instead of handing a US economic powerhouse to its competitors on a paper plate. Instead of causing brain drain, we should invest more and convince the best scientists and staff to work here in the USA, bolstering our economy, our industries, and the health and lives of each and every American.
Tausif supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)You’re not alone — a community of supporters is ready to back you.
Start a petition