Growing up abroad, one of the things that stood out to me about the United States was its outstanding educational prowess. I knew that coming to a school like Penn would open opportunities for me to engage in research in any discipline I wanted. American research capabilities were crucial in swaying my decision about where to go to college.
I wanted to be in a place where top tier universities were leading in almost every area of study: cancer research, vaccines, STEM subjects, law, and business. It seemed fascinating that in the U.S., even the humanities — often forgotten areas — had their own research powerhouse where scholars like Francis Fukyama and Kenneth Waltz produced groundbreaking articles. Penn, in itself, is a reflection of everything I admired from the outside: with initiatives like the Wolf Humanities Center, the Vagelos Program, the Penn Museum, and more, Penn offers an incredible setting to foster research.
Research is a diplomatic tool. It’s a form of soft power. It reflects, as I grew up seeing, American superiority. Just as it attracts students, it sends out a certain message: academia enables the US to expand its influence through attraction and persuasion. International students are likely to experience “American values firsthand and leave with appreciation for its ideals.” If this is true, then cutting research funding should be carefully questioned.
Interestingly enough, American academia, as it is today, dates back to the Cold War. The academic boom was part of an initiative to gain advantage over the Soviet Union, after Sputnik was launched. Paul Dickinson explains this phenomenon in his book "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century": “Many technologies, essential to modern life, including the Internet, owe their early development to the accelerated pace of applied research triggered by Sputnik.” Before the Cold War, American research was not as strong in areas like STEM and education systems did not encourage independent study — or as we call it today: universities did not follow the liberal education model. During the Cold War, research became a matter of national security.
Today, research is still essential to national security. The current administration could benefit from evaluating how research still works today as a tool of soft power and increases national security. Research can help the US get ahead of countries like Russia and China, and keep strengthening American influence abroad.
The Trump administration just suspended $175 million of federal funding to the university, on account of the school’s past policies towards trans athletes. The administration insists that these actions are being carried out to protect biological women. However, it should be considered that the effects of this decision will have a greater impact on Penn’s research capabilities (and as a result American academia and security) than it will on the safety of women.
According to a report published by UCLA Law School, the trans population in the United States amounts to only .6%. This means that there are no more than 100 transgender athletes competing in the women's category, according to researcher Joanna Harper. On the other hand, Penn’s loss of research funding will have a greater effect, starting with the populations that benefit from Penn’s research. For example, of the funding that will be cut, $14 million will be taken away from the Center for AIDS Research at the Perelman School of Medicine. Let’s go over the impacts this will have, not only on the populations that have benefited from AIDS research, but also on American security.
In 2001, Penn launched the Botswana-UPenn Partnership (BUP) which focused on treating HIV/AIDS in the region. In 2022, the AIDS related death rate had fallen from 18000 to under 5000. Additionally, 97% of the participants were receiving treatment and 98% of them achieved an undetectable viral load. Taking away funding will necessarily slow down the efficiency of the partnership. Research funding cuts are a loss for the public: for example, under similar circumstances, the administration cut more than 400 research grants that went to Columbia University. Jamie Daw, a researcher at Columbia, was forced to stop her work that aimed to decrease the maternal mortality rate.
On top of the impact these cuts have for the general public, the consequences will also be felt in international relations. For example, taking the case of BUP: were the partnership to cease to exist, a power vacuum would be left. Botswana still needs the foreign aid and if the U.S. is not willing or capable to provide it, another superpower will.
In 2015, China announced a new initiative: the Health Silk Road. Its main intention was to provide healthcare equipment and innovation abroad. The main reasons for its development? Geopolitical concerns. The Health Silk Road is part of China’s efforts to strengthen its influence in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. A large quantity of the BRI beneficiaries have a high burden of endemic diseases, AIDS being one of them. Over the past years, China has been financing treatment, vaccines and infrastructure, with a special focus on Africa. If the US starts leaving power vacuums, it's guaranteed they will be filled.
Research does not only benefit those who receive access to innovation, it is most importantly, a tool of soft power that right now, the United States cannot afford to lose. If the administration wants to deal with campus unrest or gender issues, it must find a way to protect the students without risking American values and security, not to mention the careers of everyone involved in academia. Research is crucial to the United States as a nation, it must not be lost.
MARIANA MARTINEZ is a College sophomore from Bogotá, Colombia. Her email is marmari@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
