Efforts by the Trump administration to drastically cut federal investments in medical research are threatening to kneecap major research institutions and stifle scientific progress to combat chronic illnesses.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last week it was limiting the amount of funding for indirect funds, those meant for administrative and facility costs, to 15 percent. While this move has been halted by a federal judge, university medical researchers fear their work could soon come to a screeching halt.
Richard Huganir, Bloomberg distinguished professor of neuroscience and psychological and brain sciences at Johns Hopkins University, has worked on projects funded by the NIH for more than two decades.
“What would have happened if the cut to 15 percent [to indirect costs] was a reality — which basically would mean that science and universities would be nonviable,” Huganir said. “The students, the postdoctoral fellows who are starting their careers, are incredibly worried and upset that they may not have a career, and so there’s a lot of impact, you know, at that level.”
According to Huganir, NIH funding covers roughly 70 percent of research in the U.S. The rest is covered through philanthropy and other federal agencies like the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. If federal dollars are cut off or severely reduced, he said the scientific community has “no way to recover.”
The indirect costs that are being targeted by these funding cuts include heating, facilities fees, cleaning and financial management, as well as employing students and support staff.
The 22 state attorneys general who filed the lawsuit requesting a restraining order on the NIH’s action said in their complaint that “universities and research institutions are vital economic and social institutions in each state, employing thousands of their citizens, educating and training thousands more, and creating investment and partnering opportunities with the private sector.”
Even some Republicans have sounded the alarm over the potential impact if NIH funding is slashed.
“A smart, targeted approach is needed in order to not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) told Al.com.
And it’s not simply that these universities and institutions depend on the NIH. The federal government in turn relies on the work that scientists conduct.
“The government needs this information because at the end of the day, we need to know how to better care for people, how to help reduce the likelihood of chronic disease,” Keri Althoff, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, told The Hill.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who looks set to become President Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary this week, has cited chronic illness in the U.S. as his top priority. He reportedly told Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of the few Republicans who expressed some doubt over his nomination, that he would “reexamine” the NIH cuts, earning her vote.
The mutually beneficial relationship between the NIH and researchers has allowed for the U.S. to become a global leader in biomedical research. If the current rate of work in the U.S. is significantly diminished, China would stand to expand its prominence on the global stage.
“Scientific budgets in Europe are nowhere near what they are in the United States,” Huganir said. “Japan [does] high quality research, but it’s nothing compared to the quantity we do.”
“China is expanding tremendously in science,” he added. “The Chinese government is really investing in science in a very big way … they’ve become a notable competitor now.”
Advocates have warned that patients stand to lose the most from diminished U.S. medical research.
Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, spoke out against the move to cut funding Tuesday, warning that restrictions on research activities and downsizing the federal workforce would have an “indisputable impact on the fight against cancer.”
“If these changes are implemented, cancer patients stand to lose access to innovative treatments and clinical trials, and the United States will lose its global competitive edge in biomedical research,” Lacasse said.
The White House has criticized the “hysteria” in response to the NIH cuts, arguing it is seeking to cut waste in the research field.
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.
“The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans.”
However, Althoff at Johns Hopkins said there are already “a lot of checks on all of this information that we need to provide to the federal government to demonstrate that we are doing this work successfully.”
“We do it because we believe in this mission of returning this important information that we find to improve the health of Americans,” she added.
