Cornell may not have the heft to win the Ivy League Football Championship, but it is certainly the Ivy League’s silver medalist when it comes to sponsored research.
A recent report issued by the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics gave a full breakdown of research performed at college campuses for the year ending Sept. 30, 2023. The reported amount of academic research performed on each campus can be misleading because significant research is conducted at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) that are separate from yet closely associated with specific universities. For example, the Applied Physics Laboratory is operated by Johns Hopkins University, but on a separate campus. Yet, its $2.3 billion research budget is counted as an integral part of Hopkins’ operations. In contrast, other FFRDCs, such as the MIT Lincoln Lab, Cal Tech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and University of Chicago’s Argonne National Lab are excluded from their host school’s totals.
The FFRDCs funding increased 13% in fiscal year 2023 (a total of $29.8 billion), while the campus research funding increased by 11.2% for a total of $108 billion.
Nationwide, the campus funding came from the following sources:
Source | FY 2022 ($ millions) | FY 2023 |
Federal Govt | $54,056 | $59,679 |
State and Local Govt | $4,918 | $5,447 |
Institution Funds | $24,537 | $27,702 |
Business | $5,707 | $6,230 |
Non-profit Organizations | $5,979 | $6,685 |
All other sources | $2,638 | $3,097 |
Total – All R&D expenditures | $97,835 | $108,841 |
Even adjusting for inflation, there was real growth in research and development funding of campuses nationwide..
Incoming Trump Administration
Because less than half the total funds come from the federal government, research universities like Cornell will be able to survive whatever the Trump Administration and the DOGE decides in terms of R&D budget cuts. To date, only one area of funding has been cut. The bipartisan continuing resolution included a $190 million appropriation for children’s cancer research. It was removed from the final version. It is unclear whether this spending will be covered in a later bill.
Project 2025 (at page 371) addresses the role of the Department of Energy (which funds 18 national labs) in refocusing its funding of research:
“Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies. This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement.”
Great skill will be required to maintain funding during such a refocusing of federal government sponsored research.
Project 2025 (at page 355) proposes a new cap on research overhead rates (the markup that a university charges on each research grant):
“Congress should cap the indirect cost rate paid to universities so that it does not exceed the lowest rate a university accepts from a private organization to fund research efforts. This market based reform would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.”
Cornell charges a number of different research overhead rates, particularly based upon whether the grant is performed in the endowed or SUNY statutory college units. Cornell also has grants which it shares with other universities. Although there is no intention to charge the Federal Government more in order to subsidize “leftist agendas,” enforcing such a new cap would be very complicated. In general, observers expect the Trump administration to attack overhead rates, because they are an easy target.
Cornell’s National Ranking
Cornell is second in the Ivy League and second in New York State. Here are the totals for the top 20 universities:
Rank | Institution | FY 2023 ($ millions) |
1 | Johns Hopkins Univ (incl. Applied Physics Lab) | $3,802 |
2 | Univ. of California, San Francisco | $2,047 |
3 | Univ of Pennsylvania | $1,954 |
4 | Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor | $1,926 |
5 | Univ of Washington, Seattle | $1,734 |
6 | Univ of Wisconsin, Madison | $1,732 |
7 | Univ of California, Los Angeles | $1,722 |
8 | Univ of California, San Diego | $1,705 |
9 | Univ of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | $1,550 |
10 | Stanford Univ | $1,538 |
11 | Duke Univ | $1,508 |
12 | New York Univ. | $1,457 |
13 | Cornell Univ | $1,452 |
14 | The Ohio State Univ | $1,449 |
15 | Harvard Univ | $1,435 |
16 | Georgia Institute of Technology | $1,405 |
17 | Univ of Pittsburgh – Pittsburgh | $1,398 |
18 | Univ of Maryland | $1,385 |
19 | Columbia Univ (excludes the Teacher College) | $1,342 |
20 | Yale Univ | $1,327 |
The size of funding is indicative of Cornell’s success and reputation because most grants are awarded competitively based upon the merit of the proposed research. The funds awarded are used not only for equipment but to also pay the salaries of research assistants and postdocs. Cornell recovers the cost of laboratory space from the overhead factor applied to each research grant.
Beyond the NSF report, the Cornell website for the VP of Research and Innovation provides added details about Cornell’s research efforts. For example, in FY 2022, 221 patents were issued to Cornell for its research.
In terms of Cornell’s academic units, the biggest research expenditures for 2022-23 were:
Cornell Unit | Total Research Expenditures ($ millions) |
Weill Cornell Medical School | $596.8 |
Agriculture and Life Sciences | $274.7 |
Engineering | $199.6 |
Arts & Sciences | $122.3 |
Veterinary Medicine | $78.8 |
Weill Cornell – Qatar | $33.9 |
Cornell Tech | $29.6 |
Human Ecology | $26.5 |
Bowers Computing and Info Science | $22.6 |
As Cornell continues to negotiate with the Cornell Graduate Students United union, Cornell’s ability to supply research assistants at competitive rates may be challenged. Cornell’s research environment must remain attractive to both faculty investigators and outside funders.
Cornell must continue to work hard to maintain its reputation as a research university.