Research community braces for 'profoundly negative impact' of NIH cuts
Key takeaways:
- Institutions and societies contend cuts to indirect costs — which would save about $4 billion per year — will threaten life-saving research.
- 22 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to block the cuts.
NIH’s decision to cut what it pays universities and other entities for indirect costs associated with scientific research would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, according to many academic institutions and professional societies.
The cuts would reduce federal funding to University of Pennsylvania by nearly $250 million per year and “have a profoundly negative impact on Penn’s research enterprise,” according to a statement provided to Healio.
“Research at Penn funded by NIH has enriched the world in innumerable ways, whether combatting cancer with [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapy; developing vaccines with mRNA technology; creating gene editing tools and advancing gene therapy cures; [and] developing drugs that treat a range of maladies, including those that combat macular degeneration and rare forms of congenital blindness,” the statement read. “The list is long and powerful in its impact. The reduction in funds announced by the federal government would blunt this critical, life-saving work.
“We are working to find solutions to minimize the impact on faculty and staff, and the important research and clinical trials currently underway at Penn,” the statement added. “We are also exploring all legal options available to us to address the reductions that NIH has announced.”
States file suit
NIH spent in excess of $35 billion in fiscal year 2023 to provide more than 300,000 researchers with nearly 50,000 competitive grants, according to a statement the agency issued Feb. 7 announcing the cuts.
“Of this funding, approximately $26 billion went to direct costs for research, while $9 billion was allocated to overhead through NIH’s indirect cost rate,” the statement read.
NIH grants include additional money for indirect costs, which cover expenses related to facilities, equipment, faculty, utilities, security and maintenance. In most cases, institutions charge the government a 30% indirect cost rate, though some institutions charge more than 50%.
NIH’s updated policy caps the indirect cost rate at 15% effective immediately, potentially yielding more than $4 billion in savings annually.
“NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life,” the agency’s announcement read. “Indirect costs are, by their very nature, ‘not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted’ and are, therefore, difficult for NIH to oversee.”
Twenty-two state attorneys general sued the Trump administration, along with NIH and HHS, arguing a limit on these reimbursements would threaten lifesaving research, while potentially disrupting trials, prompting layoffs or forcing lab closures.
“This is yet another unlawful and reckless attempt by the Trump administration to undermine vital public institutions and harm the people who rely on them,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, JD, said in a statement. “The administration’s decision to cap NIH reimbursement rates could force scientists to shutter their lifesaving research on cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, addiction, infectious diseases and more. My office will not stand idly by as this administration once again puts politics over science and endangers public health. We are suing to prevent this harmful policy from taking effect.”
Institutions: Cuts ‘blunt’ critical work
Officials at Fred Hutch Cancer Center are “closely monitoring the NIH policy change,” according to a statement shared with Healio.
“This policy could significantly impact our ability to continue making discoveries to treat, cure or prevent cancer and infectious diseases,” the statement read. “We are working vigorously with our peers, partners, legislators and trade organizations to advocate for Congressional intervention.”
Current research projects at Cleveland Clinic “are continuing at this time,” according to an institution statement.
“Research is a crucial component of Cleveland Clinic’s mission,” the statement read. “We are evaluating recent actions related to the NIH cap on indirect costs for new and existing grants. Our leadership teams are working to further understand how these reduced funds would have an impact on our research operations.”
University of Southern California shared a statement with Healio that read as follows:
“NIH-funded research has enabled USC and other major U.S. research institutions to save countless lives, cure diseases, produce technological breakthroughs, bolster our local economy and enhance U.S. global competitiveness. The recent announcement about the NIH places all of this in jeopardy. We are working closely with partner organizations to address this evolving environment so that we continue our work on behalf of the public good.”
Societies: Policy is ‘misguided’
Several societies and professional organizations expressed public opposition to the cuts.
Barbara Collura, CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, and Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, called on the American public to contact President Donald J. Trump and Congress to demand the “misguided policy” be reversed.
“Medical research prolongs life, improves the quality of life and allows providers to bring new treatments that help people build their families," the statement read. "The pernicious plan would have a devastating impact on the universities that employ the bulk of our country’s biomedical researchers. Despite the fact that research in reproductive health has a history of being targeted by politicians, our country leads the world in pioneering medical research because we equip smart, hard-working scientists with laboratories and infrastructure to innovate and solve problems. To slash ‘indirect costs’ that accompany research grants that pay for things, including buildings, heat and water, will starve the field of its ability to promote and preserve health.
“We have a simple question for the American people: Do you want your government to take a wrecking ball to research science?” they added. “Think about how this might impact you or your family. If your child gets diagnosed with cancer that will impair their ability to have children, do you want them to have access to innovative treatments that have been developed and researched by the best biomedical research system in the world, or do you want to rely on the same treatments we have had for last 50 years?”
An organization representing HIV physicians also called on the administration to change its mind, calling HIV research “one of the most powerful examples of the return on investments” that the NIH has made.
“It is because of NIH funding that there are incredibly effective options for treating and preventing HIV — discoveries that have improved health for millions of people in the United States and worldwide,” HIV Medicine Association Chair Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, said in a statement. “The workforce and infrastructure needed in universities and other research sites across the country to make trailblazing research possible will crumble without sufficient funding.”
Tina Tan, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said NIH funding cuts “will eliminate the promise of lifesaving medical treatments for millions of Americans of all ages, topple America’s longstanding role as a global leader in innovation, leave our nation less safe and more vulnerable to disease outbreaks and bioterror attacks, and will hurt our economy.”
References:
- Attorney General James sues Trump administration for slashing vital medical and scientific research funding. Available at: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-sues-trump-administration-slashing-vital-medical-and. Published Feb. 10, 2025. Accessed Feb. 10, 2025.
- Infectious diseases doctors warn: NIH fundings cuts threaten every American’s health. Available at: https://www.idsociety.org/news--publications-new/articles/2025/infectious-diseases-doctors-warn-nih-funding-cuts-threaten-every-americans-health/. Published Feb. 10, 2025. Accessed Feb. 10, 2025.
- NIH. Supplemental guidance to the 2024 NIH grants policy statement: Indirect cost rates. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html. Published Feb. 7, 2025. Accessed Feb. 10, 2025.
- Statement from HIVMA Chair Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, FIDSA, in response to NIH funding cuts. Available at: https://www.hivma.org/news_and_publications/hivma_news_releases/2025/statement-from-hivma-chair-colleen-kelley-md-mph-fidsa-in-response-to-nih-funding-cuts/. Published Feb. 10, 2025. Accessed Feb. 10, 2025.