Rodney Rohde, PhD, SV/SM/MB(ASCP)CM, FACSc, discusses the ongoing concerns around the federal government’s hold on funding for research and the potential chilling effect that it may have on laboratory professionals and deciding upon careers, especially in areas such as public health. He also talks about locating and engaging in potential alternative resources for research funding.
As an academic, Rodney Rohde, PhD, SV/SM/MB(ASCP)CM, FACSc, is teaching students and speaking with young, budding scientists. Rohde is the University Distinguished and Regents’ professor and chair for the Medical Laboratory Science program in the College of Health Professions at Texas State University.
As such, he is keenly aware of what is happening with the federal funding freezes and how this not only influences what research and development is getting done, but also how it might influence careers and if students will decide to go into areas such as public health.
Rohde was in attendance at the ASM Microbe 2025 conference and was an active participant at the meeting talking about his profession and speaking with his peers. During the meeting, he participated in a career summit where he discussed some of the professional career possibilities including academia, public health, clinical microbiology, and consulting. He also participated in a session where he discussed his own career journey.
“One of the tough things I think for this field right now is the ongoing changes to some of the career paths; we're struggling a little bit,” Rohde said. “Looking at public health right now, funding has become an issue in our country; it’s a concern among many of my colleagues.”
In terms of research funding, Rohde believes there can be alternative ways to secure it, and it may take some extra or creative ways to find it.
“What we're doing in the academic world is we're really starting to communicate—we've always done that—but really focus with a fine-tooth comb, on what are some options to do funding from the perspective of, say, a private foundation of donors, or internal grants—which can happen with an institution. And then, looking at that connected piece of a big topic. Infectious diseases is a huge, growing world, but maybe you can find a piece of the pie regionally…maybe I start working with other [local] institutions.”
He also mentions there might be opportunities at the state-level for grants as well as working with companies and partnering with them.
And lastly, he says it is important for the science industry to continue to engage with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the largest funder of science research, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
“We're all really working hard to talk with our government at the federal level and every level about how critically important it is to receive NIH and NSF funding. Because truly, if you look at America and probably the world, most research, drug development, patents, and amazing inventions come out of pure research, and it's expensive,” Rohde said.
Still, he remains optimistic that over the long term the current funding situation will get better and the competition for grants will help drive innovation and new development.
“It's what our country was founded on with research. Going after those grants is good, friendly competition. It breeds the best types of research and platforms and innovation,” Rohde said. “So hopefully, that will prevail over time.”
Rohde is the host and producer of Contagion’s podcast, From Pathogen to Infectious Disease Diagnosis. Check out our library of episodes.
Stay ahead of emerging infectious disease threats with expert insights and breaking research. Subscribe now to get updates delivered straight to your inbox.