Impact of potential federal sequestration on MIT research discussed by Zuber

Impact of potential federal sequestration on MIT research discussed by Zuber

MIT researchers and administrators faced uncertainty and potential budget cuts due to the implementation of sequestration in 2013. Here's a breakdown of how this affected the institution:

Final 2012 Appropriation

Sequestration, triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011, led to across-the-board cuts starting in March 2013. The final 2012 appropriations were set before these cuts took effect, so research funding at MIT for 2012 was less impacted directly by sequestration cuts but set the baseline for 2013 reductions.

President’s Request for 2013

The President’s 2013 budget request generally sought increased funding for research agencies such as NSF, NIH, and DOE, aiming to expand scientific research, including at institutions like MIT.

House and Senate Committee Recommendations for 2013

Both chambers faced the tension between budget caps and the need for research investment. House appropriations committees often recommended lower funding aligned with sequestration caps, while Senate committees sometimes advocated for higher levels closer to the President’s request. These differences led to uncertain funding levels for MIT and similar research universities.

Impact on MIT Research Funding

The sequestration cuts reduced federal research budgets overall, causing NIH, NSF, DOE, and other federal agencies to issue tighter grant budgets, slower award cycles, or reduced grant opportunities. MIT investigators would have experienced constrained support for ongoing and new research projects.

Guidance for PIs and AOs

To manage potential funding shortages, MIT and similar institutions typically advised principal investigators and administrative officers to:

• Review active grants for possible budget adjustments.
• Prioritize critical research activities.
• Communicate closely with agency program officers about award status.
• Prepare contingency plans for reduced funding.
• Optimize use of existing resources to maintain research progress despite cuts.

Resources and Reserves

The Office of the Vice President for Research at MIT, located at http://osp.mit.edu, established a reserve for "hardship" cases due to potential effects of sequestration. Additionally, the DLC Heads and Deans at MIT have set up a similar reserve to address potential issues arising from sequestration.

Communication and Monitoring

On February 27, 2013, Maria Zuber, the Vice President for Research at MIT and the E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics, sent a letter to all MIT principal investigators and research administrators outlining the possible effects of federal government's automatic budget cuts, known as "sequestration," expected to take effect on March 1, 2013. PIs at MIT were instructed to share this memo and any additional information about sequestration with concerned staff members. PIs and Administrative Officers (AOs) at MIT were also encouraged to monitor accounts closely for early warning signs of overruns due to sequestration.

For exact figures and official guidance, MIT financial and sponsored research offices or federal appropriations reports from 2012-2013 would be primary sources. If you need detailed historical budget numbers or official MIT guidance documents from that period, those would need to be consulted directly outside these search materials.

Additional resources can be found at the following links:

• http://www.aip.org/fyi/2013/031.html
• http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-043.html
• http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/in133/in133.pdf
• http://wp-srv/special/politics/sequestration-federal-agency-impact/?hpid=z1

As more information becomes available, Principal Investigators at MIT are expected to disseminate updates to their staff. They are also advised to maintain contact with their program officers for specific information regarding sequestration's effects.

1. The MIT researchers and administrators faced uncertainty and potential budget cuts due to the implementation of sequestration in 2013, leading to across-the-board cuts starting in March 2013.
2. The final 2012 appropriations, set before the cuts took effect, less impacted research funding at MIT directly but established the baseline for 2013 reductions.
3. In his 2013 budget request, the President aimed to increase funding for research agencies like NSF, NIH, and DOE, to expand scientific research, including at MIT.
4. Both the House and Senate committees faced the tension between budget caps and the need for research investment, causing uncertain funding levels for institutions like MIT.
5. The sequestration cuts reduced federal research budgets, causing agencies like NIH, NSF, DOE, and others to issue tighter grant budgets, slower award cycles, or reduced grant opportunities.
6. To manage potential funding shortages, MIT advised principal investigators and administrative officers to review active grants, prioritize critical research activities, communicate closely with agency program officers, prepare contingency plans, optimize resources, and maintain research progress despite cuts.
7. The Office of the Vice President for Research at MIT established a reserve for "hardship" cases due to potential effects of sequestration, and the DLC Heads and Deans at MIT set up a similar reserve to address potential issues arising from sequestration.
8. On February 27, 2013, Maria Zuber, the Vice President for Research at MIT, sent a letter to all MIT principal investigators and research administrators outlining the possible effects of sequestration and instructed PIs to share the memo with concerned staff members.

Read also: