Nearly all drugs developed in the U.S. are derived in part from NIH-funded research. Photo by Kena Betancur/Getty Images.
Despite multiple federal courts ordering the Trump administration to end their freeze of federal agencies’ disbursement of grants and contracts, the National Institutes of Health’s funding of research continues to be deliberately gummed up. This has already wasted resources and delayed science. And if it continues much longer, this blockage stands to unravel the primary engine that for generations has produced life enhancing biomedical and public health discovery in the U.S.
Why is NIH-funded science critically important?
First, NIH research drives the development of treatments and cures, contributing to over 99% of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019. This is not just good for people’s health but also our economic well-being in Minnesota and nationwide — NIH research delivers an estimated $2.50 of economic activity for every $1 spent. Further, NIH has been committed to training future generations of scientists, ensuring that in every decade the U.S. has led the world in innovation in health research.
Regrettably, NIH has not been able to fund new research — or even continue prior funding for studies underway in some cases — due various new administrative curbs put in place by the Trump administration. For instance, NIH convenes panels of roughly a couple dozen experts from around the U.S. to review research proposals’ scientific rigor and potential impact to advise NIH on funding decisions.
I serve on one of these panels, which was scheduled to meet for two days last week to discuss the merits of a set of submitted proposals. The day before the meeting, however, we received notice that the meeting could not take place. This was due to the Trump administration scrambling this process by barring the NIH from publishing notices of meetings in the Federal Register, which is like the newspaper of the federal government. Announcing these meetings, via publication of a prior notice in the Federal Register, is a legal requirement.
Forcing our panel and many others to halt their review process has effectively frozen the pipeline for the start-up of new research in recent weeks. If no proposals are moved through the review process, none will be funded.
One estimate stated that by Feb. 22, 2025, the missed meetings had caused the review of 16,000 research proposals to be delayed. Reports have indicated that this week NIH will be once again allowed to publish some notices of meetings in the Federal Register. But celebration of this development is premature, and unfortunately we remain in a stubborn logjam. This is due to NIH’s continuing prohibition on publishing notices of the meetings that make final funding decisions on research proposals. Without these meetings, most new research will remain stalled.
The ingredients for conducting innovative research go beyond equipment or funding of other expenses. NIH has historically held a commitment to investing in all aspects of the scientific enterprise, from building infrastructure to cultivating the highly trained human capital that is necessary for producing science, i.e., the scientists.
NIH has acknowledged that, “In spite of tremendous advancements in scientific research, information, educational and research opportunities are not equally available to all.”
To address this, for decades NIH has supported a suite of programs intended to increase the number of scientists from backgrounds and circumstances that have been underrepresented among the population of health researcher. These programs were open not just to certain racial and ethnic minorities, but also people who were the first in their family to graduate from college; grew up in low-income households; previously experienced homelessness; or hailed from rural regions. It was an acknowledgement of the reality that potential exists everywhere and ignoring this hampers progress.
The Trump administration, using their grossly distorted caricature of what “DEI” is and its purpose, abruptly discontinued many of these NIH initiatives to diversify the science workforce in the name of stifling activities that run counter to their ideology.
In some cases, individuals from underrepresented groups had submitted research applications to these programs months ago. They learned abruptly in recent weeks that their proposals would not be reviewed or considered for funding. This meant that people who have faced some of the steepest barriers to entering and sustaining a research career had put their best energies into proposals that would be thrown in the trash, sight unseen. Given how challenging problems in the realm of health are, curtailing the pool of talent that could contribute to finding future solutions is foolishly shortsighted.
Why the Trump administration would seek to stymie our system of biomedical research, which has made the U.S. a leader in innovation in these fields and has undoubtedly benefited every American family, is baffling.
What we have has taken decades to build, and if it is broken, will not bounce back.