The country’s universities and academic medical centers cut funding for medical research from a directive by the Trump administration on Saturday, a decision that would have a devastating impact on research aimed at finding treatments for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and more. and heart disease.
The purpose of the change is to reduce the amount of taxes the university spends on overhead. The National Institutes of Health announced the move Friday night, saying the $35 billion allocated last year, which was about 26 percent, had been spent.
The new policy, which will take effect on Monday, will limit “indirect funding” at a 15% price for costs such as buildings, utilities and support staff, aims to save $4 billion.
The policy would significantly cut funding, with universities and medical centers engaged in NIH-funded research, potentially limiting the number of studies that may be ongoing, said David J. Skorton, PhD, president of the American Association of Medical Colleges.
“These are real consequences, longer waiting for cure and diagnosis, slower scientific advances, losing to competitors around the world, and having less work,” he said. ”
Dr. Robert Lefkowitz, a medical professor at Duke University, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2012, said overhead is used to purchase and maintain highly complex microscopes, allowing him to examine the structure of molecules.
He said the basic research made it possible to develop life-saving drugs for cancer and other diseases. He said no researcher, not even a group of researchers, could afford the maintenance of the device, without putting federal funds into practice to support it.
“I think the American people need to understand, if that happens,” said Dr. Lefkowitz. “A lot of research just needs to stop; I can’t imagine having a shortage from other sources.”
The NIH funding also supports about 412,000 jobs, from research assistants to award managers to people who deal with toxic chemicals, said the United for Medical Research.
The NIH’s main research category is cancer research, and the field has produced breakthrough drugs that have greatly expanded survival for people with certain blood and skin cancers. Closely infectious disease research, the field produces MRNA technology, which quickly produces vaccines against Covid in 2020.
Advances in partially supported human genomes supported by certain research institutes have also led to the therapies for patients with cystic fibrosis who are expected to die in their 30s, but now living to their 60s.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration remains criticized by the “awakening” policies and cultures involved in universities that have been hitting the budget. The Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint for Republican presidency 2025 project calls for blocking research funds and says they are sometimes used to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The authors of the 2025 project said cutting such costs would “reduce subsidies for federal taxpayers.”
Elon Musk, who is executing President Trump’s administration efficiency plan, announced cuts on social media. He advised some elite universities to spend more than 30% of their grants on administrative expenses.
“Can you believe that universities with tens of thousands of billions of donations cancel research for 60% of the research awards of ‘elevated’?” Mr. Musk wrote on his social media platform X. “What a split!”
While some elite universities do have large donations, Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, is on the verge of nervousness and often loses money.
“It will be disastrous,” Professor Gosting said. “This means that in the most extreme cases, universities can’t even make money and have to stop doing basic research, including research on pediatric cancer and heart disease and dementia, and all kinds of other things. Best of all. It’s true that they’ll be bleeding money.”
He called the policy “literally, the mission of NIH is the opposite, and it is for progressing research rather than making it difficult or even unbearable.”
The government said the changes that came into effect on Monday will apply to existing grants. It would be harsh, said David A. Baltrus, an associate professor at the University of Arizona, whose lab is developing antibiotics for crops.
“I think it will destroy research universities in the short term, and I don’t know after that,” he said. “They rely on money. They budget that money. The universities are making decisions that expect that money to be there.”
Dr. Baltrus said his research focuses on keeping E. coli bacteria away from crops such as sprouts and lettuce. He said the policy changes would force his university to cut to support staff and other overhead costs.
The change could save up to $4 billion and significantly cut payments to Harvard, Yale University and Johns Hopkins, with indirect rates exceeding its grant amounts, NIH social media post says 60% of the
These institutes are currently supporting approximately 11,000 research projects in cancer research. Infectious disease research follows closely behind, with nearly 9,000 projects underway. Many of the research funded by the agency are designed to discover how the disease works in search of treatments.
NIH has greatly changed the fate of congenital heart disease, the most common birth defect, said Dr. Skorton, a cardiologist and president of the Association of Medical Colleges. He said when he was born in 1949, 80% of his illness died before he became an adult. Now, 90% of them survive.
NIH funds also support medical device providers and cleaning services nationwide, with $6.8 billion travelling to California, New York, and $4.5 billion to Massachusetts, North Carolina.
The proposal could test Republican lawmakers effectively, who largely avoid direct challenges to the Trump administration.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Republicans tend to make millions of dollars profitable from the agency, including about $1 billion to Florida, Missouri and Tennessee. Last year, North Carolina researchers received a $3.7 billion grant.
The move could “dismantle the biomedical research system, kill new treatments for disease and tear treatments, and from Elimination in patients who need it.”
“Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand overhead costs, it doesn’t mean Americans have to pay for their lives,” Ms. Murray said in a statement. Her state received about $1.5 billion NIH funds.
According to the Trump administration, the agency paid about 50,000 competing grants in 2023 at about 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions nationwide. Of these, approximately $26 billion was directly funded in research, and $9 billion covered overhead.
Overhead covers buildings, utilities, laboratory equipment, cleaning costs and “research management”, which include federally prescribed safety and regulatory committees, as well as animal caregivers and other support staff.
One study found that every dollar spent by the agency generates an additional $2.50 in economic activity.
Dr. Norman Sharpless, former director of the NIH National Cancer Institute, said he hopes the university will respond strongly to the university.
“I think it will be a very quick legal response to university consultations nationwide,” said Dr. Sharpless. “I do think this will be banned, but hopefully it will lead to discussions on what indirect costs. It’s a healthy discussion.”
He said 15% of the indirect costs would be too low in high-cost cities such as New York City, San Diego and Boston. “Because you’re actually saying you can’t do science in Manhattan,” he said.
