Scientists caution that the significant reductions in medical research funding proposed by the Trump administration pose serious risks to patients, threaten the livelihoods of thousands, and jeopardize the United States’ position as a leader in science and innovation.
On Monday, nearly twenty states filed a lawsuit aimed at stopping these unexpected cuts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), describing them as a “devastating” setback for medical research across the nation. A federal judge in Massachusetts responded by issuing a temporary injunction to halt the cuts, with a hearing scheduled later in the month to determine the legality of the proposed reductions.
“If you’ve ever hoped for a breakthrough, better treatment alternatives for yourself or a loved one, this situation should resonate personally,” remarked Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha.
As the legal battle unfolds, institutions such as universities, hospitals, and other research organizations grapple with the implications of abruptly decreased funding.
Dr. Nandakumar Narayanan, a neurologist at the University of Iowa who specializes in Parkinson’s disease, expressed deep concern over the impact these cuts could have on his work and the patients he serves. According to Narayanan, if these funding cuts come to fruition, his institution, which is among Iowa’s largest employers, could face a loss of “tens of millions of dollars,” leading to job losses and a near cessation of research activities.
The crux of the matter lies in the NIH’s decision to reduce funding for “indirect costs” associated with research grants—expenses that cover support staff, hazardous waste management, and the electricity for operating essential equipment. While the administration characterized these as simply “overhead” and detrimental cost savings amounting to $4 billion annually, researchers argue that these funds are critical for sustained research efforts. The changes propose a cap on these funding components at 15%, which could significantly hinder research at many institutions that traditionally receive over 50% of their NIH grants for these indirect costs.
The University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle, for instance, could face a staggering loss of $90 million to $110 million in funding, which may force the scaling back of vital clinical trials for diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to childhood cancers.
The lawsuit filed by the states emphasizes that implementing the 15% cap would result in the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and support personnel, obstructing numerous life-saving health studies and innovation initiatives.
Even voices from within the Republican establishment have expressed dissent. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the reductions as arbitrary and poorly thought out. Following her concerns, she reached out to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nominee for health secretary overseeing agencies, including the NIH, who assured her that he would reevaluate the cuts if confirmed.
A U.S. district court judge scheduled a hearing to explore the matter further on February 21. The Trump administration has yet to respond to requests for comments on the situation.
Last year, the NIH allocated approximately $35 billion in research grants, where scientists submit proposals evaluated for their significance by expert committees. The total grant request typically includes direct costs—such as researcher salaries and laboratory supplies—and indirect costs, which cover the administrative support and facility expenses essential for research to proceed.
Dr. Elena Fuentes-Afflick, chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges, highlighted that while research institutions already possess necessities like electricity and water, these costs are shared across various projects. Furthermore, labs researching hazardous materials require specialized safety measures that incur higher indirect costs, as explained by Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America, a research advocacy organization.
Dr. Harlan Krumholz from Yale University illustrated the importance of these indirect costs by likening a research grant to funding a concert, where direct costs cover musicians and instruments, while indirect costs involve essential but often unseen expenses for logistics, security, and venue rental. He cautioned that the proposed cuts threaten to diminish U.S. leadership in medical research precisely when urgent advancements are needed.
The infrastructure that supports research encompasses training future scientists, ensuring compliance with safety regulations, and upholding ethical standards, as former NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli emphasized. She expressed particular concern that rural universities and hospitals are likely to be severely affected, given their limited access to alternative funding sources.
Woolley pointed out that the repercussions of these cuts would extend beyond research scientists, impacting office staff responsible for administration, manufacturers of research supplies, and even local businesses reliant on the economic activity generated by nearby research facilities.
Dr. Theodore Iwashyna from Johns Hopkins University, engaged in NIH-supported research aimed at aiding recovery after pneumonia, stated that the loss of indirect-cost funding would devastate his research efforts and the supporting structures surrounding it, noting that some of his trainees have begun considering other job options.
“I tell them, ‘No, I think we can support you for now,’ but my hopes are uncertain,” Iwashyna confided. “I struggle to understand why we would jeopardize new discoveries for our children and the jobs we could create for them.”
