Science requires ethical oversight. Without federal dollars, society's health and safety are at risk
Stock photo from Getty Images.
As the Trump administration continues to make significant cuts to NIH budgets and personnel and to freeze billions of dollars of funding to major research universities – citing ideological concerns – there's more being threatened than just progress in science and medicine. Something valuable but often overlooked is also being hit hard: preventing research abuse.
The National Institutes of Health has been the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Its support helps translate basic science into biomedical therapies and technologies, providing funding for nearly all treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019. This enables the U.S. to lead global research while maintaining transparency and preventing research misconduct.
While the legality of directives to shrink the NIH is unclear, the Trump administration's actions have already led to suspended clinical trials, institutional hiring freezes and layoffs, rescinded graduate student admissions, and canceled federal grant review meetings. Researchers at affected universities say that funding will delay or possibly eliminate ongoing studies on critical conditions like cancer and Alzheimer's.
It is clear to us, as legal and bioethics scholars whose research often focuses on the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging biotechnologies, that these directives will have profoundly negative consequences for medical research and human health, with ripple effects that will last decades. Our scholarship demonstrates that in order to contribute to knowledge and, ultimately, to biomedical treatments, medical research at every stage depends on significant infrastructure support and ethical oversight.
Our recent focus on brain organoid research – 3D lab models grown from human stem cells that simulate brain structure and function – shows how federal support for research is key to not only promote innovation, but to protect participants and future patients.
The National Institutes of Health began as a one-room laboratory within the Marine Hospital Service in 1887. After World War I, chemists involved in the war effort sought to apply their knowledge to medicine. They partnered with Louisiana Sen. Joseph E. Ransdell who, motivated by the devastation of malaria, yellow fever and the 1928 influenza pandemic, introduced federal legislation to support basic research and fund fellowships focusing on solving medical problems.
By World War II, biomedical advances like surgical techniques and antibiotics had proved vital on the battlefield. Survival rates increased from 4% during World War I to 50% in World War II. Congress passed the 1944 Public Health Services Act to expand NIH's authority to fund biomedical research at public and private institutions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it 'as sound an investment as any Government can make; the dividends are payable in human life and health.'
As science advanced, so did the need for guardrails. After World War II, among the top Nazi leaders prosecuted for war crimes were physicians who conducted experiments on people without consent, such as exposure to hypothermia and infectious disease. The verdicts of these Doctors' Trials included 10 points about ethical human research that became the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing voluntary consent to participation, societal benefit as the goal of human research, and significant limitations on permissible risks of harm. The World Medical Association established complementary international guidelines for physician-researchers in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.
In the 1970s, information about the Tuskegee study – a deceptive and unethical 40-year study of untreated syphilis in Black men – came to light. The researchers told study participants they would be given treatment but did not give them medication. They also prevented participants from accessing a cure when it became available in order to study the disease as it progressed. The men enrolled in the study experienced significant health problems, including blindness, mental impairment and death.
The public outrage that followed starkly demonstrated that the U.S. couldn't simply rely on international guidelines but needed federal standards on research ethics. As a result, the National Research Act of 1974 led to the Belmont Report, which identified ethical principles essential to human research: respect for persons, beneficence and justice.
Federal regulations reinforced these principles by requiring all federally funded research to comply with rigorous ethical standards for human research. By prohibiting financial conflicts of interest and by implementing an independent ethics review process, new policies helped ensure that federally supported research has scientific and social value, is scientifically valid, fairly selects and adequately protects participants.
These standards and recommendations guide both federally and nonfederally funded research today. The breadth of NIH's mandate and budget has provided not only the essential structure for research oversight, but also key resources for ethics consultation and advice.
Biomedical research on cell and animal models requires extensive ethics oversight systems that complement those for human research. Our research on the ethical and policy issues of human brain organoid research provides a good example of the complexities of biomedical research and the infrastructure and oversight mechanisms necessary to support it.
Organoid research is increasing in importance, as the FDA wants to expand its use as an alternative to using animals to test new drugs before administering them to humans. Because these models can simulate brain structure and function, brain organoid research is integral to developing and testing potential treatments for brain diseases and conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cancer. Brain organoids are also useful for personalized and regenerative medicine, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces and other biotechnologies.
Brain organoids are built on knowledge about the fundamentals of biology that was developed primarily in universities receiving federal funding. Organoid technology began in 1907 with research on sponge cells, and continued in the 1980s with advances in stem cell research. Since researchers generated the first human organoid in 2009, the field has rapidly expanded.
These advances were only possible through federally supported research infrastructure, which helps ensure the quality of all biomedical research. Indirect costs cover operational expenses necessary to maintain research safety and ethics, including utilities, administrative support, biohazard handling and regulatory compliance. In these ways, federally supported research infrastructure protects and promotes the scientific and ethical value of biotechnologies like brain organoids.
Brain organoid research requires significant scientific and ethical inquiry to safely reach its future potential. It raises potential moral and legal questions about donor consent, the extent to which organoids should be grown and how they should be disposed, and consciousness and personhood. As science progresses, infrastructure for oversight can help ensure these ethical and societal issues are addressed.
Since World War II, there has been bipartisan support for scientific innovation, in part because it is an economic and national security imperative. As Harvard University President Alan Garber recently wrote, '[n]ew frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances. … For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.'
Cuts to research overhead may seem like easy savings, but it fails to account for the infrastructure that provides essential support for scientific innovation. The investment the NIH has put into academic research is significantly paid forward, adding nearly US$95 billion to local economies in fiscal year 2024, or $2.46 for every $1 of grant funding. NIH funding had also supported over 407,700 jobs that year.
President Donald Trump pledged to 'unleash the power of American innovation' to battle brain-based diseases when he accepted his second Republican nomination for president. Around 6.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer's, and over a million more suffer from Parkinson's. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed with aggressive brain cancers each year, and 20% of the population experiences varying forms of mental illness at any one time. These numbers are expected to grow considerably, possibly doubling by 2050.
Organoid research is just one of the essential components in the process of learning about the brain and using that knowledge to find better treatment for diseases affecting the brain.
Science benefits society only if it is rigorous, ethically conducted and fairly funded. Current NIH policy directives and steep cuts to the agency's size and budget, along with attacks on universities, undermine globally shared goals of increasing understanding and improving human health.
The federal system of overseeing and funding biomedical science may need a scalpel, but to defund efforts based on 'efficiency' is to wield a chainsaw.
Christine Coughlin, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University and Nancy M. P. King, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Marjorie Taylor Greene Fumes Over Vaccine Approval: 'Not MAHA at All'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Marjorie Taylor Greene has spoken out against a new COVID-19 vaccine being approved in the United States, saying the move is "not MAHA at all." Why It Matters Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing repeated backlash for some of his positions on health and medicine, including from people who would ordinarily support him. In May, prominent members of the Make America Great Again movement, including Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's former presidential running mate, and media personality Laura Loomer, spoke out against Kennedy Jr.'s pick for U.S. Surgeon General Casey Means. In March, Kennedy Jr. sparked anger from anti-vax activists when he called on parents to "consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine," with one saying he is "no different than Fauci." Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. AP What To Know The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light for mNEXSPIKE (mRNA-1283), Moderna's new lower-dose COVID-19 vaccine, on May 31. Greene, the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district, shared Moderna's post about the recent approval with the caption: "Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal." Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal. — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 1, 2025 She was referring to Kennedy Jr.'s movement Make America Healthy Again, whose mission is to "aggressively combat the critical health challenges facing our citizens, including the rising rates of mental health disorders, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases." Newsweek has contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services outside of office hours, via email, for comment. The new vaccine is set to be used for adults 65 or older or people between the ages of 12 and 64 with at least one or more underlying risk factor as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Approval for the jab is "based on results from a randomized, observer-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial which enrolled approximately 11,400 participants aged 12 years and older," Moderna says. It comes after Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC is no longer encouraging COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, marking a shift in federal public health guidance. What People Are Saying Chief Executive Officer of Moderna Stéphane Bancel said in a statement: "The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19. "COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA's timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health." Kennedy Jr. said about the new CDC guidance: "I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." What Happens Next The new vaccine is expected to be ready for those eligible to take it in time for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season. You should not get mNEXSPIKE if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of either mNEXSPIKE, SPIKEVAX (an mRNA vaccine for preventing COVID-19) or any Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or to any ingredient in these vaccines, the company warns.


Fast Company
31 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The best leaders are spacious leaders. Here's what that means
It can be tough out there for leaders. It's challenging to drive results, ensure you're supporting employees' well-being, and maintain your own motivation as well. So how can you be a good leader, and what are the strategies that really work? A helpful concept is spacious leadership—a management approach in which you create space for others to participate, make choices, and be their best. With spacious leadership, you also ensure space for yourself to enhance your own effectiveness and satisfaction on the job. THE NEED FOR IMPROVED LEADERSHIP In spite of leaders who work hard to do their best, a new survey by consulting firm DDI finds that only about 40% of workers believe that leaders are high quality. In comparison, leaders tend to rate themselves better than others rate them. There's a perception gap—along with an opportunity for leaders to get better. There's also evidence that leaders are feeling the pressure. In fact, 71% of leaders say their stress levels have increased, 54% report they are worried about burnout, and 40% have given thought to leaving a leadership role because they struggle with their own well-being, according to the DDI data. A spacious leadership approach addresses how leaders support others, and also how they manage their own workplace experience. CREATE SPACE FOR INVOLVEMENT One of the first ways to demonstrate spacious leadership is to invite people to participate, get involved, and have a voice. At the root of this kind of leadership is humility. It doesn't mean giving up your voice. Spacious leaders have a strong point of view, and they're secure with their own expertise, but they don't assume they have all the answers or the best answers. Comfort with admitting mistakes is also related to spacious leadership. Leaders don't have to know it all—and people appreciate it when their managers ask for ideas and value input in finding solutions. Spacious leaders empower people to be part of the process by communicating effectively. When leaders offer clear direction, goals, or challenges, people are able to be proactive and suggest ways to get things done. And when people have the opportunity to get involved, they are also more likely to feel a sense of ownership and dedication to their work. Demonstrate spacious leadership by inviting people in and sharing context so they can be effective participants in the process. CREATE SPACE FOR LEARNING AND GROWTH People of all generations crave development. In spacious leadership, you create space for people to expand their skills and competencies. Investing in employees' growth sends a message that you value them and their contributions. You can support people by creating succession plans or recommending formal learning sessions, offering regular coaching and feedback, or introducing them to mentors outside your department. The outcomes of these approaches are striking. According to the DDI study, when leaders provided coaching and feedback to employees, those employees were nine times more likely to trust their leader. And when leaders actively supported development, employees were 11 times more likely to trust their leader. Demonstrate spacious leadership by coaching and developing people. CREATE SPACE FOR PERFORMANCE We all have an instinct to matter, and people will be happier and provide more discretionary effort when they are supported in performing at their best. When you're creating space for performance, you're giving people plenty of choice, control, and autonomy. Control and decision-making have been proven to matter for health and longevity. According to two Indiana University studies (one conducted in 2016 and the other in 2020), people who experienced high job stress and had limited control over their work process were less healthy and had higher mortality rates. On the other hand, when they were in high-stress jobs but had greater choice and more decision-making power, they were healthier and lived longer. People also perform best when they have enough time to get things done. Sometimes things are hectic, urgent, or last minute, but spacious leaders do their best to give people adequate time to deliver results. This allows people the space to reflect, plan, and invest in the quality of their outcomes. Demonstrate spacious leadership by giving people the necessary support to perform their best. CREATE SPACE FOR WELL-BEING Another way to create space for people is by attending to their well-being. Give people the opportunity to set and maintain appropriate boundaries in their work and life. In addition, tune into how people are doing and ask questions. You don't need to be a professional social worker, but when you can demonstrate empathy and point people to resources, it sends a strong message about how much you care. Create space for them to share, and then listen and offer support. Paying attention to well-being is good for people—and it pays off for organizations. In a global study by the Workforce Institute at UKG, a workplace software provider, 80% of people said they were energized at work when they had better mental health, and 63% said they were committed to their work. Some 69% of workers reported that their leader has a bigger impact on their mental health than their therapist or their doctor—and about the same impact as their partner. When organizations prioritize well-being, the DDI data finds, people are 12 times more likely to rate leadership quality as high. Demonstrate spacious leadership by ensuring people have the space to nurture their wellbeing. CREATE SPACE FOR SELF-CARE As a leader, your own strength is critical to how you can support others. Just as you create space for your team's excellence, do the same for yourself. Be consistent, present, and accessible, but also ensure you have time to get away and turn off. Also consider the self-care that works best for you. The popular narrative about self-care suggests that you should spend time alone, but you may choose to spend time with others who energize you. Many people think self-care must always involve saying no, but it can also include saying yes to activities that you feel passionate about. Most important is to make choices that are nourishing for you. Another way to ensure self-care is to create a small group of trusted colleagues. Leadership requires a balance of authenticity and transparency with appropriate professionalism. You'll want to establish trusting relationships with other leaders (or people outside your organization) with whom you can relax, share worries and concerns, or get advice. Demonstrate spacious leadership by giving yourself space to regroup, rejuvenate, and bring your best. THE LANGUAGE WE USE The way we think about things and how we talk to ourselves have a significant impact on the choices we make and how we behave. With spacious leadership, you'll focus on all the ways you can create space for others and for yourself, resulting in terrific success.


Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
Home Healthcare Common for People With Dementia
The use of home healthcare services is common among people with dementia, especially for community-initiated care, a new analysis of Medicare data showed. Between 2010 and 2019, use of community-initiated home healthcare increased by 17%, while use of home healthcare for postacute care rose by 21%. Use decreased after 2020, which investigators said could be linked to staffing shortages in the home healthcare industry. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis, including over 13 million older adults (mean age, 79.4 years; 60% women; 86% White individuals) who were enrolled for traditional Medicare and received home healthcare between 2010 and 2022. The frequency and duration of home healthcare spells were analyzed and compared between individuals with dementia (28%) and those without dementia (72%). Postacute care was defined as home healthcare instituted within 14 days of discharge from a hospital, nursing home, or other facility. All other home healthcare use was classified as community-initiated. TAKEAWAY: Between 2010 and 2022, there were 30,998,653 home healthcare spells (mean, 2.2 home health spells per beneficiary). Individuals with dementia used community-initiated home healthcare more frequently than postacute care (54% vs 46%). Among individuals with dementia, the number of community-initiated care spells increased from 35.4 to 40.2 per 1000 beneficiaries and that of postacute care spells increased from 28.9 to 35.1 per 1000 beneficiaries (2010-2019) and then fell to 33.6 and 28.5 per 1000 beneficiaries by mid-2022, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of community-initiated care spells among individuals without dementia decreased by 20%, while postacute care spells decreased by 21% in this population. Home healthcare spells were consistently longer for individuals with dementia than those without it (47-52 days vs 44-50 days for community-initiated care and 40-43 days vs 32-34 days for postacute care). IN PRACTICE: 'Despite increasing use of home health care during this time period, people may receive incomplete support for their home healthcare needs through Medicare, which is centered on needs for skilled care, or Medicaid, which entails strict asset and income tests. Decreasing rates of home healthcare use since 2020 in this high-need population point to a need for ongoing monitoring of service use and outcomes for people with dementia,' the investigators wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on May 16 in JAMA Network Open . LIMITATIONS: The study relied on claims data for dementia diagnosis. The COVID-19 pandemic may have disrupted healthcare utilization, potentially leading to underdiagnosis of dementia toward the study's end. Additionally, the study only included traditional Medicare beneficiaries as those enrolled in Medicare Advantage typically use home healthcare at lower rates and for shorter periods, which may have influenced the observed trends. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging. One author reported receiving personal fees from City Block Health and Trinity Health outside the submitted work.