Just days after researchers blasted University of Arizona administrators for not providing concrete plans for dealing with the Trump administration’s federal funding cuts, the UA launched a program to bridge the funding gaps and support research.
UA’s new Bridge Funding Investment Program was announced late Thursday by Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation Tomás Díaz de la Rubia.
The program is for “faculty with an established track record of extramural funding who are experiencing temporary disruptions in external funding, particularly due to the delays or gaps in funding decisions or other disruptions to active grants,” Díaz de la Rubia said. “This program aims to ensure the continuation of research projects, including but not limited to, preserving Ph.D. student support.”
UA spokesperson Mitch Zak and Díaz de la Rubia declined to comment on how much money is being invested in the bridge funding program, where the money is coming from, and how long the funds are expected to last to support UA research. The UA is still dealing with a budget deficit, whittled from $177 million in January 2024 to $65 million this fiscal year, that it plans to eliminate by July 1.
Keith Maggert, a UA professor of molecular and cellular biology and a faculty senator, said he is extremely happy that Díaz de la Rubia is acknowledging how much the disruption in federal funding is hurting people at the UA.
“This bridge funding will keep labs open, keep students being trained, and keep progress rolling along,” Maggert said Friday. “It’s a clear investment by the UA in its people. I am truly grateful to the people who put in long and hard hours to make this happen.”
Details of the program overview, application process and evaluation criteria are only accessible to those with a UA ID. The program has been formed under the UA Office of Research, Innovation and Impact.
The announcement comes a few days after a heated UA Faculty Senate meeting, in which researchers told Díaz de la Rubia they were frustrated and concerned that UA did not have a bridge funding plan in place — while some other universities including Yale did — to deal with the impacts of the Trump administration’s orders to reduce federal funding.
Díaz de la Rubia told them Monday that something was in the works and would be announced soon.
UA Chair of the Faculty Leila Hudson said she was pleased and impressed with the speed with which the senior vice president and his team responded to the Faculty Senate’s concerns.
Hudson noted, however, that the announcement didn’t include transparency about financial details, which the faculty have always wanted more access to. “Our concerns about transparency are perennial,” she said.
“Those questions about transparency stem from previous administrations where, again, access to real-time data about our finances would have helped us identify local problems much earlier. So, that’s not specific to this administration by any means, and I think as an institution, we’re actually working together quite well and with common purpose to stave off the worst effects of all these disruptive kind of political initiatives.”
Maggert, who was one of the researchers who spoke up to Díaz de la Rubia in Faculty Senate, said the bridge funding will definitely keep labs open, since he alone knows of three labs, his included, that would have to shut down or lay people off without it.
“That would cause projects to be dropped, losses in lab/institutional knowledge and expertise, maybe dead experimental organisms (and) just having the option for the university to step in and direct life-saving funds is huge,” he said.
Secretary of the Faculty Katie Zeiders said even a small amount of bridge funding will be invaluable to faculty and students, as certain faculty members had their grants terminated and others are awaiting the release of funds due to federal-level changes.
“In my conversations, faculty have expressed the most concern for their graduate students, who rely on these grants for financial support,” Zeiders said.
“They worry about students going without pay, as many depend on these funds for basic necessities like food and housing. In such cases, temporary funding can be especially beneficial. We appreciate the responsiveness of our senior leadership and remain committed to working together to navigate the evolving research landscape.”
Zak and Díaz de la Rubia did not say why the program details were only accessible with a university ID.
The program overview, application process, and evaluation criteria page, which the Star obtained access to, list the funding purposes as: bridging the gap between an expired or soon-to-expire grant and an expected new grant award; bridging gaps created by federal funding agencies; and focusing on preserving Ph.D. student support for the semester.
“As I read the announcement, it is directed at keeping grad students primarily, but also will cover staff (including postdoctoral fellows and technical experts), and minimal operating funds (e.g., keeping organisms and cells alive),” Maggert wrote in an email to the Star.
In terms of “preserving Ph.D. student support,” the allowable expenses include their tuition and stipends, as well as expenses incurred for “essential research supplies and materials to maintain research” and “core facility usage charges.” Additional expenses could also include necessary support staff, such as administrative personnel, post doctoral scholars, and research scientists.
As to how long the bridge funding will last, the page says the funding duration will be “up to one semester,” with a maximum of six months.
Evaluations of the applications, to happen monthly, will be based on: dean recommendations; impact of the funds on preserving Ph.D. students’ roles; likelihood of securing future funding; applicant’s track record of extramural funding; and clear evidence that the funding gap is due to delays or disruptions in funding.
“The bridge funding is a very positive development. But I hope the fights will continue in court to get funds released,” said Lucy Ziurys, a UA professor of chemistry and biochemistry and a faculty senator.
“The poor treatment of scientific researchers by the current (Trump) administration is shortsighted and will damage our country in the long term,” Ziurys said. “It sends a very discouraging message to the younger generations who may be interested in pursuing careers in science and engineering. It’s hardly a plus to scare off bright young people from scientific technical careers.”
