NIH Funding cuts sacrifice innovation for efficiency

By Staff Writers Dhaeshna Booma, Tushara Devapatla,  Janet Guan & Vikram Mahajan, 

Introduction

“I AM FOR MAJOR SPENDING CUTS! WE ARE GOING TO DO REDUCTIONS,” President Donald Trump said last month in a social media post referring to his administration’s proposed federal budget. The sweeping cuts include a $65 billion reduction taken from the National Institute of Health (NIH), a federal agency dedicated to conducting medical research and world’s largest public funder of biomedical and behavior research. The drastic funding reductions follow previous efforts by the administration to downsize the federal budget, including establishing the sub official Department of Government Efficiency.

However, rather than reducing unnecessary spending, the recent NIH budget cuts have devastated medical research and science as an industry altogether. By seeking to manage scientific development on the basis of government efficiency, the cuts have prompted the NIH to reduce funding from research institutions across the country, threatening research within higher education, public health, and the future of scientific innovation in the US. When scientists and researchers are pressured by financial strains to consider cost over value, the issues that the scientific community aims to address today –– education, advancement, and inequities –– will ultimately be pushed to the side. 

Background 

Beginning in January, the Trump administration froze federal health agency communications and announced a dramatic reduction in NIH coverage for facility and administrative costs, or indirect costs, slashing rates from around  70% down to 15%. In the following months, an executive order restructured federal research priorities, leading to layoffs and shrinking the NIH’s capacity by more than 20,000 personnel. By March, a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the plan, ruling that the administration failed to assess human and scientific consequences of the cuts, but the NIH continued with grant cancellations. April brought sweeping grant terminations, forcing hundreds of labs to close and leaving ongoing studies in limbo. In May, the administration proposed an $18 billion, or 40%, cut to the NIH budget, further destabilizing university research, jeopardizing graduate programs, innovation pipelines, and the jobs of thousands of scientists.  

Running science on “efficiency” 

For decades, funding from the NIH has driven national research by supporting universities and colleges across the country. By reducing indirect rates, the administration overlooks the critical importance of managing indirect costs in research. Universities and colleges cannot conduct advanced research when they struggle to pay their researchers and maintain the facilities they work in. Neglecting this reality reflects a broader prioritization of efficiency over scientific development itself.

The State University of New York at Buffalo, for example, estimated losses of $47 million in funding over the coming years, including $7 million for labs, research and equipment lost through June 30. Efficiency as a framework for overseeing scientific development threatens science as an industry altogether. As a direct result of drastic reductions in NIH funding, universities across the country have begun to pause or decrease graduate admissions. Professors from the University of Pennsylvania reported to the New York Times that the university is reducing graduate admissions, including one graduate program that has to rescind 60% of its acceptances. UC San Diego decreased graduate admissions to its School of Biological Sciences by 32%, according to the Washington Post. Graduate student researchers represent the future of scientific research in the US, training young scientists to carry on the competitive legacy of American scientific research  — a legacy NIH funding cuts threaten. “If we have too many people opting out of science, we will see a huge brain drain when it comes to 10 years from now when we’re looking at the scientific workforce in the United States,” Cancer Research Institute CEO Alicia Zhou said. 

 Aside from affecting infrastructure and newer generations of researchers, funding cuts on the basis of efficiency will significantly impact the workforce in scientific research as well. The 15% cap on indirect costs itself is projected to impact more than 46,000 jobs according to data from the New York Times analyzed by IMPLAN. This retrogressive trend will yield devastating consequences for the future of academic research by limiting the amount of research opportunities available to researchers and students alike  — shrinking the industry altogether. 

Devastation to medical research 

With the NIH being the primary funder of biomedical research in the US, budget cuts to the agency will have long-lasting implications for not just ongoing medical research, but the structure of medical research funding itself. In the public health sector, the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 45% of NIH funding cuts were administered to medical schools and hospitals. Additionally, 113 of the more than 700 grants terminated so far have impacted research on HIV and AIDS, cancer, and mental health –– issues that remain a major concern for Americans today. 

Aside from grant cancellations to critical areas of health research and drastic funding cuts to medical institutions, the new 15% cap on indirect costs has the potential to set back medical advancement as a whole by forcing researchers and scientists to increasingly consider the financial strain of their work. Experts worry the new trend will impact the foundation that serves as the basis of new medical innovations such as mRNA cancer vaccines. Although foundational research is critical to medical advancement, it is rarely immediately profitable, hence representing a significant financial investment and risk for researchers who lack adequate funding. “In a world where [scientists are] worried about having NIH funding, they are choosing to only do the less risky projects,” Zhou said, “The projects that are getting cut are the higher risk, higher reward projects.” 

Medical advancement and scientific development should not have to occur in an environment where researchers have to constantly worry about the financial trade-offs of their work. By reducing the NIH budget and allowing funding to be cut off from individual projects and indirect costs alike, the administration is far from accomplishing efficiency. Rather, it promotes a new culture of scientific research that values productivity and profitability at the cost of quality and advancement  — a framework that will eventually cost human lives.

Effect on health inequities 

Poor representation of demographic groups in medical research has been a long-standing issue in public health, where diseases that uniquely or disproportionately impact certain groups are often heavily under-researched. Women’s health in particular is a notoriously underexplored field of scientific research. Only 5% of global research and development funding is spent on researching issues related to women’s health, a disparity that parallels the gender imbalance in clinical trials. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, in 2019, women only made up 40% of clinical trials. The NIH has previously taken strides in addressing this disparity, but the funding cuts stymie its efforts in doing so.

Alongside the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in the federal government as well as universities and colleges, NIH grant cancellations disproportionately affect projects related to underrepresentation. The proposed budget eliminates funding for the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). Additionally, 50.6% of grants for active research projects related to LGBTQ+ health were terminated according to a study compiled by Nature. “It’s literally a 180. There was no warning [about the grant cancellations] … It’s really hard to get individuals from under-resourced groups into clinical trials,” researcher Whitney Wharton said.

In an area that requires more federal attention and funding rather, the administration’s proposed cuts instead threaten a halt on progress towards equity and justice. By decreasing funding for research and scaling back equity programs for underrepresented communities, the administration pushes medical research farther back from improving the collective health of America.

Conclusion 

The funding cuts to the NIH reflect a significant danger to national progress in health and medicine. The administration’s hostility towards scientific and medical research jeopardizes the health and future of millions of Americans in the process. Funding cuts from major research universities stop research in its tracks, setting back the clock on crucial medical breakthroughs. The administration’s vague justification for the cuts has allowed it to make cuts that affect every facet of the NIH, and the lives of countless Americans in the process. 

 Cuts to the NIH have slowed progress on scientific research, but it is incumbent upon students at MSJ and researchers across the country to continue their own independent studies and research. It is ultimately the responsibility of the next generation of Americans to ensure that science and medicine remain fields of innovation and discovery, so that we can move forward and achieve progress rather than turn back the clock.