Opinion: Science is Utah's quiet engine — don't stall it with cuts to important funding
In 2024, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded over $300 million to Utah institutions. That funding supported thousands of jobs, helped launch companies, and enabled groundbreaking research in everything from cancer treatments to Alzheimer's to rare disease therapies. Public health advances that benefit every Utahn — urban or rural — almost always begin through federally funded research.
But now, that progress is in jeopardy.
Proposed cuts and restrictions to NIH funding could have devastating effects on Utah's research institutions and economy. The plan to slash NIH's overall budget by nearly half, coupled with a proposal to reduce the indirect cost reimbursement to universities from around 50% to 15%, would mean far less money to cover the real costs of doing science. Basics like lab space, utilities, data storage and administrative support aren't luxuries — they're the infrastructure that makes research possible.
For public universities like the University of Utah and Utah State, this isn't just a budget concern. It's a structural threat. Without adequate indirect cost support, universities would either have to drastically scale back research activity or shift the financial burden to students and state taxpayers. Both options would weaken Utah's competitive edge in science and technology.
The consequences would ripple far beyond campus. Utah is known for its 'Industry' motto — a title that honors the resourcefulness and hard work that built our communities. Today, that industrious spirit thrives in our biotech labs, clean tech startups and health research centers. But industries can't thrive without innovation. Utah's life sciences sector depends on a steady pipeline of NIH-supported talent and discoveries emerging from research. Companies like Recursion, Myriad Genetics and BioFire Diagnostics thrive because of academic partnerships and access to skilled graduates. Pulling funding would slow innovation and shrink the talent pool.
But it's not just about economics. It's about people.
NIH funding supports clinical trials that help Utah families battling cancer. It funds suicide prevention programs in our schools, mental health outreach in rural counties, and pediatric care innovations at Primary Children's Hospital (PCH). It supports research for Native American communities and families dealing with chronic conditions like diabetes and asthma. Without that funding, many of these programs would disappear.
I've seen the impact of public health investment firsthand. After I tested positive for latent tuberculosis as a student, I received free weekly treatment and health monitoring through the Utah County Health Department. It was science-backed care, delivered through a local system supported by federal resources. Without that treatment, I could have developed active tuberculosis — a threat not just to me but also to others. The system worked because it was built on scientific research and proactive policy. That kind of safety net doesn't happen without sustained funding.
Furthermore, my nephew, Wesley, was cared for at PCH when he was just four months old. He was diagnosed with polyarteritis nodosa, a rare autoimmune disease that causes inflammation and damage to the heart. The NIH not only funds various programs at PCH but also was crucial to backing the science that led to properly diagnosing and saving Wesley.
These cuts hurt the next generation. Graduate students and early career scientists — many of whom come from Utah — rely on federal research grants to get their start. If funding dries up, so do those opportunities. We risk losing promising young minds to other careers or other countries.
This is not a partisan issue. Scientific progress should never be about politics. Every Utahn benefits from the medications they take, the clean water they drink, the safe food they eat and the medical care they receive. All of these are underpinned by science. Restricting it weakens our shared safety net and quality of life.
Utah is built on hard work, innovation and foresight. Cutting science funding now would undermine the very foundation that allows us to adapt, compete and care for our communities. Science works for Utah — let's keep it that way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 hours ago
Arizona, Nevada and Mexico will again get less Colorado River water in 2026
DENVER -- Arizona, Nevada and Mexico will again live with less water from the Colorado River as drought lingers in the West, federal officials announced Friday. The Colorado River is a critical lifeline to seven U.S. states, 30 Native American tribes, and two Mexican states. The cuts are based on projections for levels at federal reservoirs — chief among them Lake Powell and Lake Mead — released every August by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Arizona will again go without 18% of its total Colorado River allocation, while Mexico loses 5%. The reduction for Nevada — which receives far less water than Arizona, California or Mexico — will stay at 7%. California won't face any cuts because it has senior water rights and is the last to lose in times of shortage. Decades of overuse and the effects of long-term drought worsened by climate change means there's far more demand for water than what actually flows through the river. Low reservoir levels at Lake Mead have triggered mandatory cutbacks every year since 2022, with the deepest cuts in 2023, which hit farmers in Arizona the hardest. Meanwhile, the states are working to reach agreement by next year on new long-term rules to govern the river in dry years. The Trump administration gave a mid-November deadline for states to reach a preliminary agreement, or risk federal intervention. Negotiations have faced delays as states push back against how much water they should each give up. The original 1922 Colorado River Compact was calculated based on an amount of water that doesn't exist in today's climate. That leaves the Upper Basin states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah to share far less water after the required amount is sent to the to the 'Lower Basin' states of Nevada, Arizona and California. Lots of water is also lost to evaporation and leaky infrastructure. Fairly splitting the river's water in the era of climate change has been vexing for years, with all of the major users hesitant to give anything up as they anticipate a drier future. There has to be enough water in the reservoirs to reach the tunnels that usher water downstream, and ideally, even more water for hydropower generation. Key infrastructure like the Hoover Dam rely on certain water levels in Lake Mead to generate electricity. Mandatory cuts and emergency water releases are 'reactive," said John Berggren, a regional policy manager at Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit focused on climate change. 'If we are going to be able to have a sustainable Colorado River and not just be responding to crisis after crisis, we need large amounts of flexibility built into this new set of guidelines," he said. 'We can and must do better. Nature isn't waiting for us,' said Becky Mitchell, Colorado's commissioner in the Upper Colorado River Commission. States are considering a so-called natural flow approach to managing the river — where the Lower Basin would receive a certain percentage of the average natural flow from the prior few years. The Lower Basin states have helped stave off deeper cuts by coming up with voluntary conservation plans. 'Absent all of those measures, the river would be in a very bad place,' said J.B. Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and a board member for the Imperial Irrigation District, the largest user of the river's water. Still, he knows California, like others, will likely have to give up more in the negotiations. Dozens of conservation projects along for Upper Basin states and tribes are in limbo. President Donald Trump froze yet-to-be-distributed Inflation Reduction Act funds on his first day in office, which included nearly $400 million for those projects. The entire Colorado congressional delegation signed a letter earlier this month urging the release their portion of those funds. ___ This story has been corrected to remove a reference to the third year of cuts in the headline. The cuts announced Friday are set for 2026, which will be the fifth year. ___ Associated Press journalists Amy Taxin in Tustin, California, and Mead Gruver in Fort Collins, Colorado, contributed to this report. ___
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
US judge denies request to halt Oak Flat land transfer to copper mining company
A U.S. district judge on Friday denied the latest request by a Native American tribe, environmentalists and other plaintiffs to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. The ruling by Judge Dominic Lanza triggered an immediate appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a deadline fast approaches for the federal government to move ahead with the transfer next week. Lanza outlined the 'stark trade-offs' at the heart of the fight over Oak Flat, an area considered sacred. He pointed to the economic and national security benefits that would come from the land transfer and the indescribable hardships that would result from the permanent destruction of the Apaches' historical place of worship. Lanza wrote that the nation's political branches are responsible for weighing competing objectives and determining how to balance them. 'Here, Congress chose to pursue the land exchange despite the existence of many significant trade-offs and the president chose to ratify Congress's choice by signing the law into effect,' he wrote. 'As a result, the Court must accept that this choice advances the public interest and operate from that premise.' Conservation groups that are appealing the decision acknowledged that the clock was ticking but said they were not giving up. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, the group Apache Stronghold and other plaintiffs having been fighting in court for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The plaintiffs have taken aim at a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer. They contend the federal government did not consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure or if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area. Before the land exchange can happen, they argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that considers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' The plaintiffs also raised concerns that an appraisal failed to account for the value of the copper deposits underlying one of the federal parcels to be exchanged The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. The project has support in nearby Superior and other mining towns in the area. Resolution Copper — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs. The tribe and the advocacy group Apache Stronghold sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect Oak Flat. The U.S. Supreme Court in May rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
US judge denies request to halt Oak Flat land transfer to copper mining company
A U.S. district judge on Friday denied the latest request by a Native American tribe, environmentalists and other plaintiffs to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. The ruling by Judge Dominic Lanza triggered an immediate appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a deadline fast approaches for the federal government to move ahead with the transfer next week. Lanza outlined the 'stark trade-offs' at the heart of the fight over Oak Flat, an area considered sacred. He pointed to the economic and national security benefits that would come from the land transfer and the indescribable hardships that would result from the permanent destruction of the Apaches' historical place of worship. Lanza wrote that the nation's political branches are responsible for weighing competing objectives and determining how to balance them. 'Here, Congress chose to pursue the land exchange despite the existence of many significant trade-offs and the president chose to ratify Congress's choice by signing the law into effect,' he wrote. "As a result, the Court must accept that this choice advances the public interest and operate from that premise.' Conservation groups that are appealing the decision acknowledged that the clock was ticking but said they were not giving up. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, the group Apache Stronghold and other plaintiffs having been fighting in court for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The plaintiffs have taken aim at a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer. They contend the federal government did not consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure or if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area. Before the land exchange can happen, they argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that considers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' The plaintiffs also raised concerns that an appraisal failed to account for the value of the copper deposits underlying one of the federal parcels to be exchanged The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. The project has support in nearby Superior and other mining towns in the area. Resolution Copper — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs.
