Researchers Respond to NIH Funding Cuts

The NIH has said it will cap, with immediate effect, the amount of funding that can be used for “indirect costs,” such as facilities and administration. The agency says this is to ensure that as much funding as possible goes towards “direct scientific research costs.”

Research institutes have been quick to respond, arguing that the cuts will have a significant impact on research and medical breakthroughs, and cause panic as grant recipients will already have budgeted for the year ahead based on negotiated costs.

“The notice, issued Friday evening with an effective date of Monday, sought to implement ‘a standard indirect rate of 15% across all NIH grants for indirect costs in lieu of a separately negotiated rate for indirect costs in every grant,” said a statement from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). It argued that the funding change would leave “institutions no choice but to scale back research activities. This could mean fewer clinical trials, less fundamental discovery research, and slower progress in delivering lifesaving advances to the patients and families that do not have time for any delay.”

AAMC – alongside other stakeholders – launched a lawsuit to block the NIH’s move. A separate lawsuit was also filed by 22 US states. A temporary restraining order on the NIH changes has now been issued nationwide, with a hearing scheduled for February 21.

Numerous researchers and institutes have issued statements explaining how damaging the funding cap is, and how indirect costs are often misunderstood. “This is not simply an accounting change; it is far more serious with significant implications for Penn’s research programs,” said a statement from the University of Pennsylvania. “Conducting academic research incurs significant infrastructure costs – such as construction of specialized labs, utilities costs, technical equipment, and regulatory compliance. These F&A rates, sometimes referred to as indirect costs, have been carefully negotiated for decades using a rigorous review process. Even at the current rate of 62.5%, government funding covers only about half of these infrastructure costs.”

A statement from Stanford Research adds: “Indirect costs are the way the government invests in research infrastructure for the nation and are vital to our research activities. They are real costs, providing the resources needed for buildings and labs, equipment, and staff who support our research.”

The University of Pennsylvania goes on to explain the financial implications of the funding cuts. The university would lose annual funding of around $240 million. “If other federal agencies were to adopt the same formula, the loss to Penn would reach $315 million. The effect of this sudden and major change in research support will be to severely harm our highly impactful research mission.”

Meanwhile, the State University of New York (SUNY) has estimated that the funding caps will cost $79 million for its current grants, including more than $21 million over just the next five months.

At Johns Hopkins University (JHU), clinical trials could be affected. NIH funding supports around 600 ongoing trials, including trials for cancer and pediatrics. “The NIH funding cut endangers these trials and many more like them into the future,” said JHU President Ron Daniels and Hopkins Medicine CEO Theodore L. DeWeese. “And these trial participants are our patients. The care, treatments, and medical breakthroughs provided to them and their families are not 'overhead' – they offer meaningful hope and scientific expertise, often when it's needed most.”

Senators have also raised concerns. Republican Senator Susan Collins said: “I oppose the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH. I have heard from the Jackson Laboratory, the University of Maine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, the University of New England, and MDI Biological Laboratory, among others, that these cuts, which in some cases would apply retroactively to existing grants, would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs.”

Here's a roundup of responses from across the research community:
 

Northwestern University
“The proposal includes capping indirect cost recovery at 15% for both new and existing NIH grants to universities, a significant departure from our current negotiated rate of 60% that would have profound implications for Northwestern’s research enterprise and for federally funded research across the country.”

SUNY
“We are proud of our extraordinary researchers and the life-changing, groundbreaking medical discoveries you have dedicated your careers to advancing. From working to cure Alzheimer's disease to improving cancer outcomes, from supporting 9/11 first responders to detecting brain aneurysms, your research is essential to our national security and economic leadership. NIH's cuts represent an existential threat to public health.”

Breakthrough T1D, formerly JDRF
“This cut will significantly decrease the federal funding that research institutions receive to conduct critical type 1 diabetes (T1D) research. This includes grants funded by the Special Diabetes Program. 

“The decades of strong Federal support for T1D research have paid immense dividends. Developing cures requires that strong support to continue. This action is a step backward that hurts not only T1D research and the 1.6 million Americans living with T1D but also research for many other diseases.”

University of California
“As the world’s leading public research institution, we depend on NIH funds to perform our vital mission. A cut this size is nothing short of catastrophic for countless Americans who depend on UC’s scientific advances to save lives and improve healthcare.”