Warnings from scientists reveal that the Trump administration’s drastic reduction in medical research funding poses a threat to patients, jobs, and America’s global position in science and innovation. Nearly twenty states filed a lawsuit on Monday to prevent the National Institutes of Health from slashing billions of dollars in medical research nationwide, labeling it as a “devastating” setback. Later that day, a federal judge in Massachusetts temporarily halted the cuts and scheduled a hearing for later this month to determine their legality and potential enforcement.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha emphasized the personal impact of these cuts, stating, “If you’ve ever hoped for a cure or better treatments for yourself or a loved one, this should hit close to home.” As universities, hospitals, and research institutions struggle with the sudden loss of funding, the future of ongoing research projects hangs in the balance.
Dr. Nandakumar Narayanan, a neurologist at the University of Iowa, expressed concern over the potential consequences of the cuts on his research and patient care for those with Parkinson’s disease. If implemented, the cuts could result in significant financial losses for the university and its hospital, leading to job losses and a standstill in research efforts.
The controversy surrounds the NIH’s decision to reduce “indirect costs” for research institutions that rely on its grants, including expenses for support staff, waste disposal, and equipment operation. The administration’s proposal to cap these costs at 15%, down from potentially over 50%, has raised alarm among research communities who view these funds as essential for conducting research.
The lawsuit highlights the University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle as one of the institutions facing substantial funding losses, potentially impacting ongoing clinical trials for diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to childhood cancer. The states’ legal action argues that the proposed cap would disrupt critical health research and technology projects, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of researchers and workers.
Senator Susan Collins, a Republican lawmaker from Maine, criticized the cuts as arbitrary and poorly planned. She reached out to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nominee for health secretary, who pledged to reconsider the directive if confirmed. A hearing on the case is scheduled for February 21st, with the Trump administration yet to provide a response to the ongoing legal proceedings.
Last year, the NIH distributed approximately $35 billion in grants, supporting research proposals vetted by expert committees for their potential impact.
The significance of funding for research projects is underscored by the allocation of total grants, which are divided into “direct” costs covering essentials like researchers’ salaries and laboratory supplies, and “indirect” costs encompassing administrative and facility expenses to facilitate the work. Dr. Elena Fuentes-Afflick, chief scientific officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, emphasized the necessity of factors such as electricity, water, hazardous waste disposal, IT security, and building security to support research endeavors.
Research labs, although equipped with basic amenities like water and electricity, share costs among various projects utilizing them. Labs engaged in handling hazardous viruses, for instance, require heightened safety measures that incur significantly higher expenses compared to other research types, leading to increased supporting costs for grants to cover institutional supplementary outlays, as explained by Mary Woolley, president and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group Research!America.
Drawing an analogy, Dr. Harlan Krumholz of Yale University likened the funding of research projects to organizing a concert, where direct costs pertain to remunerating musicians and acquiring instruments, whereas indirect costs involve venue expenses, sound system setup, and event management, all vital components that may go unnoticed by the audience. Dr. Krumholz stressed the potential adverse impact of budget cuts on the longstanding global leadership of the U.S. in medical research, advocating for sustained progress rather than impeding it.
The indispensable but often invisible infrastructure includes nurturing the next generation of scientists, hiring personnel to enforce safety protocols and ethical standards, as highlighted by former NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli. She noted that hospitals and universities in rural states are at heightened risk of funding loss, given their limited access to alternative financial resources.
Mary Woolley underscored that job losses resulting from funding cuts extend beyond scientists to encompass office staff managing finances, small businesses supplying research equipment, and even local food trucks reliant on the lunchtime patronage from nearby laboratories. Dr. Theodore Iwashyna, a critical care physician at Johns Hopkins University engaged in NIH-funded research aiding pneumonia recovery and rapid return to work, expressed grave concern over the potential devastation of his research and supporting infrastructure if the indirect-cost portion of his grant is eliminated. Dr. Iwashyna acknowledged the uncertainties faced by his trainees regarding job security, assuring them of temporary support while expressing hope for sustained funding.
Reflecting on the implications for future generations reliant on breakthrough discoveries and job creation, Dr. Iwashyna lamented the detrimental impact of funding cuts on research continuity and professional prospects. The collaborative efforts of AP reporters Christina Larson, Laura Ungar, and Lisa Mascaro, supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, contribute to the informative content delivered by the Associated Press Health and Science Department.
