Discussion about NIH research funding cuts requires 'data, time and careful evaluation'
Key takeaways:
- The cuts would cause “extremely challenging” short- and long-term impacts, according to a prominent data scientist and researcher.
- A federal judge temporarily blocked the cuts from taking effect.
NIH’s plan to cut what it pays universities and other entities for indirect costs associated with scientific research would have “extremely challenging” short- and long-term impacts, according to a renowned data scientist and researcher.
“If this comes to fruition, we’d be in a situation where we wouldn’t be able to do research the way we do it today,” Paul Boutros, PhD, MBA, vice dean for research at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, told Healio.
A federal judge on Feb. 10 granted a restraining order that temporarily blocks the cuts from taking effect.
Boutros called the ruling “welcome news.”
“It gives time to have some sober second thought, to evaluate what this means, to make sure people understand the difference between direct and indirect costs and the potential consequences, and to figure out the right way to allocate funding to cure disease and make people better,” Boutros said.
However, Boutros emphasized the judge’s order is temporary. He said he anticipates “ongoing discussion” about what activities indirect costs support, which ones should be prioritized, and how to ensure they are appropriately funded.
‘Big piece of the dollar pie’
On Feb. 7, NIH announced its intention to cut the amount of money most universities and other research centers receive for indirect costs, including those related to facilities, equipment, utilities and maintenance.
In most cases, institutions receive a 30% indirect cost rate in addition to the research funding. Some institutions receive a 50% indirect cost rate or more. The amounts are based on “careful assessments of actual costs over a rolling period of time,” Boutros said.
NIH spent in excess of $35 billion in fiscal year 2023 to provide nearly 50,000 competitive grants, according to a statement the agency issued announcing the cuts. About $26 billion covered direct costs for research and $9 billion went toward indirect costs.
NIH’s plan caps the indirect cost rate at 15%, 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.”
Boutros compared a research lab to a small business. Direct costs fund the enterprise’s core activities — in this case, the researchers. Aside from facilities and maintenance, indirect costs also fund institutional review boards, cybersecurity, accounting and other components.
“We would be forced to identify which of those activities we want to continue and which ones we can’t continue given funding resources,” Boutros, a professor of human genetics who has received NIH grant funding for cancer-related research, said in an interview. “Equivalently, it could lead to a reduction in enthusiasm for doing research because there’s a perception that it’s not being valued and that it doesn’t offer an opportunity to really drive society forward.
“I have no reason to believe that is the intent of the order, but certainly the rapid turnaround and uncertainty has created a lot of tension in the community,” he added. “I always say if people are trying to cure a disease, we want their brains focused on trying to cure that disease.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the cuts would violate an appropriations law that Congress passed 11 months ago. Collins also said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for HHS Secretary, promised to re-examine the funding cuts if confirmed.
Twenty-two state attorneys general sued the Trump administration, along with NIH and HHS, arguing a limit on these reimbursements would threaten lifesaving research related to cancer, diabetes, infectious diseases and many other conditions while potentially disrupting trials, prompting layoffs or forcing lab closures.
A hearing in that case — which prompted the federal judge to issue the restraining order — is scheduled for Feb. 21.
Other universities and higher education associations also have filed lawsuits.
“Nobody can project the potential first-, second- or third-order effects, but it’s unclear that we’re taking time to really evaluate, quantify and make really good decisions. That is reflected in all the stress about this,” Boutros said.
“I don’t think people disagree on the fundamental goal that we want to make sure there is lots of value generated by research, and that means both lots of money and efficient use of that money,” Boutros added. “Those are universal principles. I expect we’re going to discuss the efficiency of allocation quite a bit, and indirect costs are a big piece of the dollar pie. It’s very reasonable to discuss it, but that discussion needs data, time and careful evaluation.”
Cuts ‘blunt’ critical work
Many academic institutions and professional societies issued statements in the past few days calling for the cuts to be rescinded.
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.”
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.”
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.”
Richard E. Pratley, MD, the Samuel E. Crockett Chair in Diabetes Research, medical director of AdventHealth Diabetes Institute and a Healio | Endocrine Today Co-editor, said his institution is at the upper end for indirect costs with a rate comparable to Stanford University, and about 80% of his institution’s translational research funding comes from the NIH. Pratley said the indirect costs support the infrastructure for clinical trials, and the loss of NIH funding would have a big impact on AdventHealth Diabetes Institute’s operations.
“[Funding cuts] wouldn’t shut operations down, but we would have to lay off people and figure out ways to make do with less,” Pratley told Healio. “Nobody wants that. It would have an immediate impact that would be a little bit stifling for research.”
Pratley said he believes there are ways the government can reduce indirect costs without impacting research by reducing reporting requirements for clinical trial progress that don’t impact patient safety. If the proposed NIH funding cuts are implemented, however, it could drastically impact smaller institutions and lead some to halt research entirely, Pratley told Healio.
“If [funding] goes away, I think it’s going to be less likely that people are going to do research, less likely that cures will be found and less likely that people will receive cutting-edge care,” Pratley said. “At little institutions, where they don’t have the same kind of support, they’re going to get out of [research] altogether.”
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.
- Senator Collins’ statement on NIH biomedical research cap on indirect costs. Available at: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/senator-collins-statement-on-nih-biomedical-research-cap-on-indirect-costs. Published Feb. 10, 2025. Accessed Feb. 11, 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.
For more information:
Richard E. Pratley, MD, can be reached at Richard.Pratley.MD@AdventHealth.com; X (Twitter): @RpratleyMD.
Collapse
Healio Interviews
Read more about