"It is very early and very difficult to knowexactly what is going to happen," says Andrew H.Knoll, chair of the department of Organismic andEvolutionary Biology. "We get most of our fundingfrom the NSF, where many prognositcations say thatthere will be plat funding, and in a world ofinflation, that means there's less money to goaround."

According to Losick, scientists have beencommunicating a great deal with each other aboutthe impact of budget cuts.

"There has been quite an active e-mail and faxnetwork between scientists," Losick says. "HaroldVarmus, the head of the NIH and a researcher, hasbeen quite an outstanding leader in articulatingthe importance of biomedical research."

No one looks for funding to increase forscience in the near future.

"Funding has not been outstanding in the pastdecade, and I don't look for it to get better overthe next five years," Knoll says.

"No matter what the final outcome is, there islittle doubt that research dollars from thegovernment will become scarcer and scarcer inyears ahead," adds Losick.

"The next 100 days is what will impact scienceand technology," Weimer says. "It is clear therewill be a substantially smaller federal investmentin science in the future." But whatever thepredicted outcome, it is clear Harvard will not bestanding still. According to Rudenstine, advocacyis very much Harvard's responsibility as a leadinginstitution of higher education.

"There is a strong place for Harvard at thetable," he says. "This is a moment to thinknationally.