The preliminary 2018 budget the Trump administration released earlier this month is supposed to give negotiators a starting point, but Oregon's largest universities already are rattled by the sweeping cuts in science and research spending it proposes.

The fiscal blueprint could upend or delay scientific study across the state -- from cancer research on Pill Hill in Portland to programs affecting coastal communities - and longtime observers of the political process say it's an ominous sign of where the administration's interests lie.

The uncertainty will stretch for months, as the federal budget-writing process will continue into the fall for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Meanwhile, multiple media outlets reported Wednesday that the White House is now looking to slash federal research spending this fiscal year. Congress must pass a budget resolution by the end of April to continue funding the government until the end of fiscal 2017. However, experts say Trump's controversial proposal is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

The 2018 budget would strip nearly $6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, which would dramatically alter future cancer research at Oregon Health & Science University, as well as sidetrack its clinical trials on an AIDS vaccine.

"I've been a scientist for 40 years and an administrator for 22 years," said Daniel Dorsa, senior vice president of research at the Portland campus and who has held a similar position at research powerhouse University of Washington. "This is the worst starting point for a negotiation that I've seen."

Robotics research at Oregon State University could be slowed down, and a maritime education program that provides a vital connection to coastal communities would be all but eliminated under Trump's proposal. Portland State University, meanwhile, received more than $47.6 million in federal research funding last year, helping pay for drought research and other projects.

Officials at the University of Oregon worry that its School of Education, which accounts for more than one-third of the school's $98 million in federal research activity, would see new granting opportunities dry up.

"Part of the alarm is the uncertainty," David Conover, vice president of research and innovation at the Eugene school, said in an interview this month. UO President Michael Schill has made growing the Eugene university's research portfolio one of his top priorities.

But OHSU may have the most to lose.

OHSU received $234 million from the NIH in 2016 alone, an infusion that helped support research and clinical trials by thousands of doctors and scientists at the medical and bioscience hub in Southwest Portland. NIH grants accounted for more than 82 percent of OHSU's federal research dollars in 2016.

Though budget-writing responsibility falls to Congress, the president's budget sends a "concerning message" about his overall priorities, Dorsa said.

If passed, his proposal "would be devastating certainly to OHSU and to biomedical research broadly," said Dorsa, who estimates that 6,000 to 7,000 OHSU employees are involved in research.

One concern is that budget cuts would essentially cut off any new research funding, a move that would presumably protect existing grants that are doled out over several years.

Cutting new grants would affect younger faculty, Dorsa said, who are just coming into the system.

The proposed budget comes as OHSU continues building up its South Waterfront campus, where three buildings are slated for completion by 2019, including a 320,000-square-foot building that will house the Knight Cancer Institute.

Though some of that work is supported by a $500 million pledge from Phil and Penny Knight, Dorsa said the cancer center's future scientific success is "predicated on continued support from the federal government."

If the NIH budget is slashed to the levels proposed, "everything will be effected," he said.

OHSU, which reported $283 million in federal grants for research in 2016, is hardly alone in worrying about the future of scientific research funding.

OSU in Corvallis pulled in $212.6 million in federal research dollars last year, with the largest share coming from the National Science Foundation.

Though those running many federally backed initiatives have been left to wonder if they should expect the across-the-board 10 percent cut projected for most agencies outside of Defense and Homeland Security, one National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration-funded program was called out specifically by the administration.

The Sea Grant program, which has 33 branches across the country, is a $73 million initiative the president said should be scrapped entirely.

Oregon's Sea Grant, housed at OSU, receives most its annual budget from the federal government. Shelby Walker, the program director, said her 40-person staff is supported by a $2.4 million federal grant that is matched by the Corvallis school.

The proposed cuts would represent a "significant majority of the program."

Sea Grant staffers run the marine education program at OSU's Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport and have employees in extension offices up and down the coast. They work with community members on such issues as commercial crabbing concerns in Astoria, acting as a facilitator for often difficult local conversations.

Walker said it was disheartening to hear Trump call out her program specifically. "We've had a pretty strong record of being a presence in the community," she said.

UO is pushing lawmakers in Salem for $100 million in state bonds to help build two new science buildings on the school's planned Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact.

The university has a $500 million commitment from the Knights, spaced out over a decade, to help pay for two of the planned buildings.

UO hopes to break ground this fall, and was banking on a 30 percent increase in federal research dollars once the project is fully operational.

Patrick Phillips, the Knight campus' acting director, said in a statement that "the long-term success" of the six-month old initiative is dependent on federal support.

But then again, that's been the story of Post-World War II America, he said.

"This has served as the economic engine for the country for the last 70 years," he said of federal research funding. "We should not take that hard-fought leadership position for granted."

-- Andrew Theen

atheen@oregonian.com

503-294-4026

@andrewtheen