In recent weeks, the Trump administration has targeted the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a world-renowned research agency and the largest public funder of biomedical research, for drastic changes that would undermine scientific integrity, innovation, and public trust and, ultimately, harm health and economic security. Newly confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also made clear his intentions to scale down staffing significantly at the agency, particularly staff whose research does not align with his opinions, and to essentially end investments in key areas such as drug development and infectious disease research.
In addition, the Trump administration’s now-partially lifted halt on external HHS communications and ban on HHS staff travel disrupted critical NIH functions, including participation in research presentations and recruitment for new trials. Advisory committees and study sections could not meet to review and finalize grant awards, interrupting grant approvals and, consequently, funding for researchers. Even a short interruption because of these restrictions can cause months-long review backlogs and, as a result, suspended research projects and delayed approvals for new clinical trials for lifesaving cancer treatments.
Funding that supports research on the non-medical factors affecting disease and life expectancy—such as the effectiveness of certain interventions in reducing transportation gaps in health care access—was also placed on hold and continues to be restricted and heavily scrutinized under the administration’s directive to terminate funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Meanwhile, the latest policy to cap administrative support for research institutions at 15 percent would cut billions in funding for operational and maintenance costs for labs, data systems, and staff to help prepare grant applications. As research organizations contend with all of these shifts and are forced to manage more limited research budgets, it is possible that research staff could shrink and projects could go unfunded.
The consequences of these actions could have real and immediate impacts on people’s health; for example, limiting the public’s access to timely news and data on disease outbreaks hinders doctors and patients’ ability to take action to protect their health. In terms of NIH, new treatment protocols and medicines that can save lives and reduce the burden of disease would be delayed or forgone, directly harming people’s well-being and putting the country’s competitive edge at risk.
NIH is critical to life-changing research
The role of the NIH in protecting the health and well-being of Americans cannot be overstated. The institutes’ annual budget is nearly $48 billion, roughly 94 percent of which funds biomedical research at universities, hospitals, research institutes, biopharmaceutical companies, and laboratories across the country. NIH-funded research spans more than 300 health topics, including substance use, chronic conditions, injuries, mental health, aging conditions, genetic disorders, health disparities, social factors influencing health, and more. In addition, NIH is integral to vaccine development and the availability of new drugs on the market: NIH funding contributed to research for roughly 99 percent of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019, including heart medications.
Each year, the NIH awards more than 60,000 grants that support more than 300,000 researchers across 2,500 institutions. The economic impact of this funding throughout the country is significant. The advocacy group United for Medical Research found that in fiscal year 2023, funding from the agency supported more than 410,000 jobs, with 10,000 NIH-supported jobs in some states. In that same year, NIH-funded research fueled nearly $93 billion in economic spending. Overall, the economic benefit of NIH funding is more than twice the investment made through NIH appropriations.
NIH cuts would adversely affect every state
Changes to the agency’s overall budget could adversely affect every state, reducing the economic benefit of NIH funding and limiting opportunities for new health research. Researchers in nearly every state and almost every congressional district receive NIH dollars. In FY 2024, nearly $40 billion in NIH awards was distributed across states to cover individual research projects, institutional programming at research centers, and training and career support for scientists. Researchers across some states, such as Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina, were awarded more than a billion dollars of NIH funding last year. Secretary Kennedy’s aim to take “a break” on infectious disease research would also put nearly $5 billion in investments to institutions and researchers in direct jeopardy, about 40 percent of which went to support research in states, like North Carolina and Missouri, that voted for Donald Trump in 2024.
Beyond grant dollars, state economies derived $50 million to $13 billion in activity from NIH-funded awards in 2023. For example, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Louisiana, Kentucky, and New Mexico generated $5.2 billion, $2.8 billion, $1.6 billion, $600 million, $594 million, and $290 million, respectively, in economic activity from NIH grants in FY 2023.
Conclusion
The NIH is a critical driver of biomedical advancements and generates significant economic activity in many states. Looming changes from the Trump administration would adversely affect researchers, universities and institutions, and state economies—ultimately limiting medical advancements and therapies available to patients.
This article was published by the Center for American Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment