By now, most of us have heard a lot about the Trump administration’s drastic changes. One prominent issue is the proposed NIH funding cuts, which aim to reduce “administrative bloat” in research funding. Even though the cuts haven’t fully gone into effect yet, many universities are preparing for the worst, anticipating the loss of millions of dollars. But how will this affect cancer research and, more importantly, patients? Let’s discuss.

The NIH and Its Influence

The National Institutes for Health (NIH) is a US federal agency that supports medical research globally. It is the largest public funder of biomedical research worldwide, and its mission is to advance knowledge about living systems and improve health. Its funding fuels breakthroughs in developing therapies, improving public health, and enhancing patient care. The NIH has a large influence through:

• Scientific advancements: its policies aim to ensure inclusivity in clinical trials, and it supports cancer research and drug development
• Economic impact: NIH funding creates jobs, strengthens research infrastructure, and bridges science with commercial applications
• Global leadership: helps the US stay a leader in global biomedical research

But recent budgetary changes threaten the NIH’s impact and have led to controversy over how to ensure sustainability while still being efficient.

Indirect Cost Reductions

The NIH has traditionally reimbursed indirect costs—expenses like lab maintenance and utilities—that are essential to lab functions. But now it is planning to cut this funding from an average of 60% to 15%. This may have huge ripple effects:

• Hiring freezes and less lab expansions
• Layoffs for technical staff
• Slower progress in conducting experiments and making discoveries

Dr. Richard Huganir at Johns Hopkins calls this “an Apocalypse of American science.” He researches autism and intellectual disabilities and is “terrified that research is going to stop.”

Clinical Trial Closings

Without grant money and indirect cost support, important clinical trials may end, with concerning effects:

• Delayed treatments for diseases like breast cancer (due to less clinical trial data)
• Smaller institutions could lose trial access, harming rural/underserved populations
• Less FDA-approved drugs in the next decade (since approval comes from trial outcomes)

Loss of Young Scientists

Early-career scientists will be disproportionately affected, since they may not be able to secure a position or funding. This can cause labs to close, pushing talent toward pharmaceutical companies instead of university academic research. Additionally, mid-career scientists risk losing tenure-track positions.

Dr. Otis Brawley at Johns Hopkins says, “I’m worries about the loss of creativity from young people; that’s where all the really good ideas come from.”

What Can We Do?

The NIH budget cuts encompass a complex issue: Where do we draw the line between discovery and efficiency, especially when lives are at stake? Even with ongoing legal challenges, we as a community can take action to support biomedical research and improve patient care:

• Advocacy and Policy Engagement: reach out to local representatives and join advocacy groups like the American Cancer Society
• Support Non-Profits: donate to research foundations and volunteer to support patients
• Promote Preventative Measures: encourage healthy habits and raise awareness about cancer screenings
• Spread Awareness about Clinical Trials: encourage clinical trial participation, which helps advance cancer research
• Combat misinformation and educate others on the importance of research

---

Links for further reading:

Impact of NIH Research

NIH Budget Cuts Are the ‘Apocalypse of American Science,’ Experts Say

NIH research cuts threaten the search for life-saving cures and jobs in every state

Stagnant funding of NIH is shackling young research scientists