A (3:21)

Industrial monument to the miracle drug mass.

B (3:24)

Production penicillin plant at Terre Haute, Indiana, one of many where the life saving.

A (3:29)

Medicine is now being manufactured wholesale. Tons of mold like that.

B (3:33)

You see, the lesson wasn't lost on Washington. Funding university scientists doesn't just save lives, it drives innovation and fuels the economy. But today, that pipeline of funding is under threat. The Trump administration is slashing federal support for research universities across the country, putting decades of progress at risk.

C (3:56)

We need to fix this as soon as possible. It's difficult for lay people that don't work in the research environment to understand the consequences.

B (4:11)

I'm Margo Gray. This week on Campus Files, we're joined by Dr. Joan Brugge, Director of Harvard University's Ludwig Cancer center, to explore what we might lose and what's at stake for the next generation of medical miracles. Since taking office for the second time this January, President Trump has made demands of colleges across the country. In almost all cases, schools have caved to these demands, with one notable exception.

C (4:46)

And today, Harvard is paying the price, literally. The White House says it's freezing more than $2 billion grants to the university after it rejected the administration's demands for sweeping changes.

B (4:59)

In April, Harvard received a letter of demands from the Trump administration and made the shocking decision to respond to that letter publicly, calling these demands a violation of the First Amendment. In responding this way, Harvard, America's oldest and richest university, picked a fight with the Trump White House, which has extraordinary powers over the university's future.

C (5:24)

My name is Joan Bruge and I'm a professor of cell biology at Harvard Medical School. I'm also the co director of the Ludwig center at Harvard.

B (5:34)

I wanted to talk to Dr. Bruge because she's currently living through the crisis over research funding. So far, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants at Harvard. That freeze threatens research across the university, research on everything from opioid addiction to infectious diseases to cancer, which is Dr. Bruge's field. She's a pioneer in cancer biology and has spent decades studying how healthy cells become cancerous, the kind of foundational work that paves the way for new treatments. So you have devoted your career to cancer research. I'm curious if we rewind to your Childhood, Were there any early clues that science would be your calling?

C (6:19)

So, as I remember it, I just love to explore outside. We live very close to a woods, and my brother and sister and I would just spend hours looking for creatures and bringing them home, looking at them actually from a cheap microscope and learning about their life cycles and how to keep them alive. But I also remember basically devouring a used set of encyclopedias that were given to me by a friend of my father's who noticed that when I was at their house, I just spent all my time with the encyclopedia, encyclopedias.

B (6:48)

Still, despite her clear interest in science, Dr. Bruge says it never occurred to her that she should actually go into the field.

C (6:56)

This was in the 50s and early 60s. I'd never even met a female doctor. So basically, the only women that I was exposed to as a young girl who had jobs relating to science were high school science and math teachers.

B (7:10)

My understanding is that you went to Northwestern actually thinking you'd become a high school math teacher. How do you go from there to ultimately studying cancer research?

C (7:21)

My sister, who was a year older, she was 21, was diagnosed with a specific kind of highly aggressive brain tumor called a glioblastoma. And it was just devastating for me and my whole family. The initial diagnosis was shocking, but watching her slow decline after many unsuccessful attempts to reduce the tumor with radiation, was just horrible to witness. And all of us were affected by it.

B (7:50)

Dr. Bruge couldn't fathom how someone so young could face cancer. It set off a relentless need to understand the disease devastating her sister and their family.

C (8:01)

So one of the times when I was visiting her at the hospital, her neurosurgeon came into the room, and I asked him what was known about the cause of cancer. And he said, you know, that unfortunately, there was very little known about the causes of cancer, but there was some evidence suggesting that viruses might cause cancer.

B (8:21)

That idea that viruses might cause cancer stuck with Dr. Brugge, and she decided to do an independent study on cancer and viruses at Northwestern.

C (8:31)

The scientific papers that I read as part of this were my first exposures to experimental science. I saw how one develops a hypothesis, designs and runs experiments to test the hypothesis, and then interprets the results and then. And reshapes the hypothesis and this iterative process. I was just totally fascinated by this and decided that I basically wanted to become a scientific sleuth to investigate, like a detective, to investigate the causes of cancer and ways to block it. So I changed my major to biology, and I started my journey to become a cancer Researcher.

B (9:11)

So you go on to do a postdoc at the University of Colorado where you made a major discovery early in your career. Tell us about what you discovered at that time.

C (9:21)

One of the most potent cancer inducing viruses that was being studied was a virus called Rous sarcoma virus.

B (9:30)

The virus is named for Peyton Rouse, who back in 1910 was approached by a farmer with a sick chicken. The farmer wanted answers about the strange tumors spreading through his chicken flock. Ultimately, Rouse discovered something that would change cancer research. The tumors were caused by a virus.

C (9:50)

This virus turned out to be extremely potent. So when they injected the virus into chickens, they got tumors within a week. And if you put this virus on chicken cells that were cultured in a petri dish, in an incubator, they were transformed in two days into tumor like cells. And at the time that I started my postdoc, it was known that there was one gene, one part of the genetic information of this virus that was necessary and sufficient to cause cancer. And so there was enormous attention on finding out about this gene and what it coded for. And that was my project. And it was just 20 months of just tireless trying many, many different approaches. And finally, I think I might have been about to give up and I lucky enough to identify the protein. And it was one of those eureka moments.

B (10:46)

Dr. Brugge's discovery didn't just take time, it took money, a lot of it. And much of that funding came from a federal grant. Today, this pipeline of government support for university research feels like a given. After all, the federal government now funds the majority of academic research in the US but it wasn't always this way. As we heard earlier, the modern system was born out of necessity. During World War II, when the government turned to university scientists to mass produce penicillin, develop radar, and most famously, build the atomic bomb. In the process, Washington learned a powerful Investing in university research pays off. So after the war, they decided to keep the partnership going. What emerged was ambitious and unlike anything that came before it. The government would set broad national priorities like landing on the moon or advancing public health, and leave it to the scientists to figure out how to get there.

C (11:49)

You know, our federal grants are basically a contract with the government to carry out research that the government decided are a high priority for the health and welfare of the country. And so basically, this research is in the service of our fellow Americans. And we consider this a contract. It's not a gift to do whatever you want, and we're held highly accountable.

B (12:12)

But the government doesn't decide who gets these Grants. Instead, the US Uses a system called peer review, where scientists evaluate each other's proposals. The goal is to keep politics out of the lab and ensure funding goes to the most promising research. Tell us what the grant process is like and just how competitive it is.

C (12:33)

Only about 9 to 10% of all grants get funded. These grants are very difficult. They take one to three months to write. And so nine out of 10 people who have spent one to three months writing a grant will not get funded. And that's what we deal with. The level of quality control and the rigor that our grants are subjected to is, I think, unprecedented in any kind of institution. And we are reviewed on a yearly basis for the progress that we make. And if you aren't making progress, then you can't continue the grant.

B (13:07)

Dr. Brugge has been fortunate to receive 30 grants over the course of her career supporting her research in labs, first at SUNY Stony Brook and then the University of Pennsylvania. But her largest and most ambitious grant came most recently for her project at Harvard's Ludwig Center.

C (13:24)

I received a grant that is referred to as an outstanding Investigator award. And it's unusual in that it's funded for seven years instead of the typical two to five years. And it was for $600,000 a year, as opposed to the typical grant of, say, 200 to $250,000. It's specifically awarded to investigators who have had an outstanding record of accomplishments in the past. So there's faith that they'll be able to continue to do well. But it's also funding people that are proposing to take a bold new approach.

B (14:00)

With this really prestigious grant, the outstanding Investigator award. What exactly are you and your team investigating?

C (14:08)

Cancer develops after a series of mutations accumulate in a cell. What we thought is that we could find the earliest precursors of cancer by probing individual cells, lots thousands of individual cells in the tissues from women that carry genetic alterations that predispose them to get. We figured that these individuals are most likely to have cells on their way to cancer.

B (14:38)

In other words, instead of studying tumors, Dr. Bruge set out to look further upstream in cancer growth. Using new technology, she would examine individual cells to try to catch the very earliest changes well before a tumor ever forms.

C (14:54)

So we didn't know what we would find. But it turns out that after a few years working on the grant, we. We found cells that had one or two genetic alterations that are among those that are most commonly associated with breast cancer. And so they looked like precursors of cancer. So now what we want to do is find ways to detect those cells in humans so that we can monitor when these cells are expanding and when they're starting to expand to become cancer so we can develop early detection strategies and then also most importantly, the ultimate goal which is being able to eliminate those cells so that we can stop cancer, to intercept cells on their way to cancer before they develop cancer. And this is the grant that was terminated when the government terminated all grants at Harvard.

B (15:51)

Fall is in full swing and it's the perfect time to refresh your wardrobe. Luckily, Quince makes it easy to look chic, stay warm and save big without compromising on quality. Quince has all the essentials you could ask for from wool coats to washable silk tops and skirts. Personally, I've been loving their denim pieces which are designer level quality at a fraction of the price. By partnering directly with ethical top tier factories, Quints cuts out the middlemen to deliver luxury quality pieces at half the price of similar brands. Keep it classic and cozy this fall with long lasting staples from quince. Go to quince.com campus for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com campus to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com campus.

A (16:50)

Hey there cats and kittens. It's Brian from the commercial break, the mediocre comedy podcast where my best friend.

B (16:55)

Chrissy and I attempt to make sense of the world.

A (16:57)

We talk about the absurd, the ridiculous and the stuff no one asked for, like Internet weirdos, pickup artists and why everyone is obsessed with crystals and colonics. It's all gotta stop. The show is free, it's frequent and it's probably not for everyone. You can go to tcbpodcast.com subscribe@YouTube.com thecommercial break or check out the show wherever you listen to podcasts. We'll see you on the next commercial break. And best to you, mint is still 15amonth for premium wireless and if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's 15amonth.

C (17:28)

2.

A (17:29)

Seriously, it's 15amonth. 3. No big contracts.

C (17:33)

4.

A (17:34)

I use it. 5. My mom uses it.

B (17:36)

Are you.

A (17:36)

Are you playing me on? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

B (17:42)

Payment of $45 for 3 month plan, $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

C (17:55)

Tonight the federal government follows through on its threat to withhold money from Harvard after the university rejected a list of demands.

B (18:03)

The university refuses to negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights. Harvard was hit with a funding freeze of $2.2 billion in grants. In April 2025, the Trump administration announced plans to freeze $2.2 billion in federal grants and 60 million in contracts to Harvard, a move that sent shockwaves through the academic and research community. What do you remember about that moment when you first learned that your funding was being pulled?

C (18:37)

I remember very well. So I was at a breast cancer retreat in the mountains of western Massachusetts, and we were on a coffee break, so I looked at my iPhone to see if I had any new messages, and there was this message indicating that two of my grants had been terminated. And it was just this visceral gut punch. And basically my knees buckled and I had to sit down.

B (19:02)

What was it like going back to campus and stepping back into your lab?

C (19:07)

The place was like a morgue. We were all just walking around in a state of shock. No one could believe that something like this would be done to all the researchers, regardless of what they were doing or how they were doing it. We're unable to perceive how the government could not be aware of the severe consequences of these cuts.

B (19:31)

More than 900 grants at Harvard have already been terminated. According to the New York Times, the cuts are disrupting research on everything from infectious diseases to neurological disorders to the human genome. And that's not all. In its proposed national budget for 2026, the government is calling for 40% cuts to multiple agencies that fund biomedical research.

C (19:55)

In addition to that, besides the 40% cut, they're also proposing to put a cap on the indirect costs.

B (20:02)

Indirect costs refer to the funds that supplement a grant to cover essential infrastructure, things like computers, biosafety measures, and security personnel expenses necessary for a lab to function. I imagine it will take time to see the full impact, of course, but what are you seeing so far?

C (20:23)

So one thing that I'm experiencing now is that instead of spending time working with the people in my lab on developing the best strategies and interpreting the data, I'm spending my time trying to find alternate funding because we really have to keep this research going. Basically, it just requires an enormous amount of effort to find substitute funding to rescue the terminated research grants. The other thing is that several people in my lab are so concerned about there being a severe reduction in funding that they've already started looking for jobs and there's a hiring freeze because of the terminations. We can't hire new people. And so that is severely affecting maintaining the research pace because these people had very specific expertise and now we can't replace them. It's going to take time to retrain people with the expertise. Scientific technologies are so sophisticated now that it takes a lot more training than.

B (21:24)

It used to to try to stop the bleeding. Harvard Medical School has taken out loans to provide emergency funding, but that's hardly a long term solution. Various policymakers have floated the idea that pharmaceutical companies could simply step in to fill the gap. Dr. Brugge, though, is quick to point out the drawback. For one, research funded by pharmaceutical companies often can't be shared until a study is fully complete, a process that can take five or six years. Dr. Brugge's team, by contrast, regularly shares discoveries in real time at conferences around the world, fueling the exchange of ideas that often sparks breakthroughs.

C (22:05)

And then the other thing is, I'm not sure if pharmaceutical companies are funding it. How you would have a really effective training for young investigators, meaning you wouldn't.

B (22:15)

Be training the next generation of scientists.

C (22:18)

Exactly. I consider that one of my most important jobs because we have to keep the engine going.

B (22:26)

This apprenticeship model is one of the core strengths of the American research system. When the federal government gives a grant to a university, it doesn't just support the lead scientist, it also funds graduate students, postdocs, even undergrads. That means the research itself doubles as hands on training for the next generation of scientists. That model doesn't exist in the private sector. And without it, you don't just lose the research, you lose the future scientists too. But perhaps the biggest issue with relying on pharmaceutical funding, as Dr. Bruge points out, is that these companies aren't built to support basic exploratory research, the kind focused on investigating broad scientific questions rather than developing a product. Pharmaceutical companies already spend enormous amounts of money on drug development and advertising. They aren't going to spend more money on years long research that might never result in something they can sell. What's an example of a major breakthrough that started with this kind of basic research? Exploratory research?

C (23:31)

A really good example is the CRISPR technology. So the technology that now being used to treat many diseases by fixing genetic errors, that came from investigators that were studying ways in which bacteria defend themselves against a foreign bacteria.

B (23:52)

Dr. Brugge brought up another example, the new class of drugs for diabetes and weight loss, the most well known being Ozempic. Its origins actually trace back to the 1970s, when scientists were studying how genes instruct cells to produce a hormone called glucagon. Dr. Bruge says it's this type of government funded exploratory research that's propelled the US to the forefront of science and medicine and driven economic growth along the way.

C (24:18)

There's been several studies that have shown that for every dollar that's spent on NIH funding, that there's a return to the economy of 2.$5. The whole country reaps the benefits, not only in terms of the health benefits, but also the economic benefits. There's not many investments that have returned so consistently to.

B (24:41)

Here's a crazy stat. According to the Federal Reserve bank of Dallas, government funded research has driven roughly a quarter of all productivity growth in the US business sector since World War II. And it's no surprise, because that research laid the groundwork for some of the most transformative technologies of our time. Everything from MRNA vaccine technology to GPS, smartphones, and even the Internet. Let's imagine for a second a world where the funding comes back. To what extent has damage already been done?

C (25:14)

It's interesting. I was at a conference this summer and there were many Europeans there, and multiple European investigators volunteered to me that they can't talk their graduate students into applying for postdoctoral training in the United States. Now they're afraid of what's happening to the whole research infrastructure, so they're going elsewhere.

B (25:34)

And do you see a world where American trainees could potentially fill those roles?

C (25:39)

There just aren't enough American PhDs that are interested in doing research, postdoctoral training in research, in academic research. So these people are not taking jobs away from Americans. And that's a really important point. So we are very dependent on these international trainees for keeping the research going.

B (26:00)

In the long term. What do you see as the implications of that?

C (26:04)

You can imagine a prestigious symphony orchestra where the most talented musicians, which would be equivalent to the top scientists from all over the world, are drawn to this premier conductor that would be the top research labs. This conductor has a reputation for creating beautiful music which would be equivalent to making groundbreaking discoveries, and is known for leading the best performances. Because of that, the most accomplished musicians are very eager to join the orchestra, and that ensures that the orchestra will remain at the forefront of musical excellence.

B (26:41)

The metaphor goes, if an orchestra loses its funding, musicians will go elsewhere and eventually it'll lose its prestige.

C (26:50)

Very importantly, we're going to lose our competitive edge and leadership in the world. You can pause a lot of different endeavors and activities and things can be picked up at a later point, but that's not possible. With research, especially if we lose the people and we lose confidence in our labs so that we aren't able to bring the best and the brightest back to our labs. I think we need to communicate that in a more understandable way to politicians that pausing research has many consequences that will take a very long time in order to recover from. Things were accelerating a pace that was unprecedented and you know, like in cancer, we can identify the exact alterations in every single individual's tumor and tailor the therapy based on that. So we have to keep this going to ensure that we don't lose this momentum.

A (27:54)

This episode is brought to you by White Claw Search Great podcast pick friend. No surprises there. After all, you're all about finding the tastiest flavors out there, just like White Claw Surge. And with big bold flavors to enjoy like blood orange, BlackBerry, cranberry and more, it's time to go all in on taste. Unleash the flavor. Unleash White Claw Surge. Please drink responsibly. Hard seltzer with flavors 8% alcohol by volume. White Claw Seltzer Works Chicago, Illinois.

B (28:22)

This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Checking off the boxes on your to do list is a great feeling. And when it comes to checking off coverage, a State Farm agent can help you choose an option that's right for you. Whether you prefer talking in person on the phone or using the award winning app, it's nice knowing you have help finding coverage that best fits your needs. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there when she looks ahead. Dr. Bruge doesn't see much reason to feel optimistic. Still, it's the only way she knows how to move forward.

C (28:58)

It's important for me to maintain the optimism for the people in the lab and, you know, just on a daily basis to say, we're going to get through this and we, we can't give up a good fight right now. We have to keep forging ahead.

B (29:15)

Dr. Brugge's lab isn't alone in this fight. Across the country, dozens of universities have seen their federal research funding frozen, delayed, or placed under review. The impact spans institutions of all kinds, from the nation's largest public universities to private research powerhouses, small liberal arts colleges, and even community colleges. Faced with these funding cuts, many universities have been forced into an impossible choice. Some schools have opted to settle with the Trump administration to restore their funding. Columbia University, which faced the loss of $400 million in research grants, agreed to pay a $200 million settlement. Brown University similarly followed the suit, paying a $50 million settlement. Harvard, meanwhile, chose a different path, taking the administration to federal court in a high stakes legal battle. But Dr. Bruge warns that no matter who prevails in the courtroom, the bigger loss could be America itself. The turmoil, she says, threatens to undermine the United States hard earned status as the world's leading destination for pioneer, pioneering scientific and medical research. Campus Files Is an Odyssey Original Podcast this episode was written and reported by Margo Gray. Campus Files is produced by Ian Mont Eliot Adler and me, Margo Gray. Our executive producers and story editors are Maddie Sprunkiser and Lloyd Lockridge. Campus Files is edited, mixed and mastered by Chris Basel and Andy Jaskowicz. Special thanks to Jenna Weiss Berman, J.D. crowley, Leah Reese, Dennis, Maura Curran, Josephina Francis, Kurt Courtney, Hilary Schuff, Sean Cherry, Laura Martin Berman and Hilary Van Ornam. Original theme music by James Waterman and Davey Sumner. If you have tips or story ideas, write to us at campus files podmail.com.

A (31:32)

Olivia loves a challenge. It's why she lifts heavy weights and likes complicated recipes. But for booking a challenge, Olivia chose the easy way. With Expedia she bundled her flight with a hotel to save more. Of course she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower. You were made to take the easy route. We were made to easily package your trip. Expedia Made to Travel flight inclusive packages.

C (32:01)

Are atoll protected what's up guys? I'm Jordan Robinson, host of the podcast the Women's Hoop Show. We're heading towards the home stretch of.

B (32:08)

The WNBA season and there is so.

C (32:10)

Much much to get into every episode. Twice a week I'm joined by one of my amazing co hosts as we.

B (32:15)

Dissect the biggest games, performances and even.

C (32:18)

Some off court drama. The playoffs are quickly approaching and now is the best time to tune in. Who will come away as this year's champion?

B (32:25)

The competition is heating up and so are we.

C (32:28)

Listen to and follow the Women's Hoop show available now wherever you get your podcasts.