Latest news with #NIH
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
The Human Cost of Cuts at the CDC and NIH
Americans' distrust of science isn't merely leading to lower vaccination rates for such preventable diseases as measles; it's also fueling shortsighted proposals to scale back public-health programs that save lives and taxpayer dollars ('RFK Jr., Measles and Dr. Fauci,' Review & Outlook, July 10). The 2026 presidential budget proposes to cut roughly 40% of the budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which perform state-of-the-art research on a broad spectrum of public-health threats.
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Universities are in turbulent times
Universities must not forget their core business, Gareth Jones writes. Life is turbulent for universities worldwide. If it is not the doctrinaire antipathy towards universities shown by the United States government, it is lack of funding from governments in many other countries. The outright hostility between government and universities in the US is not commonplace in most other countries, and yet there are subtle forces at play that are creating ongoing concerns. It is increasingly common to encounter criticism of issues being researched, especially in the humanities, and the "woke" character of academic life and interests. No matter how vague this criticism may be, it is sufficient to justify governments downplaying the stature of universities and their role in society. Consider the experience of a very high-profile researcher and administrator in the United States. Francis Collins initially came to prominence for identifying the genetic cause of cystic fibrosis. He then led the Human Genome Project and served as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2009-21. He was closely associated with the research to find a vaccine against Covid-19 and advocated very strongly for use of vaccines once available. On his retirement from the NIH he returned as a researcher to the Genome Research Institute. However, in 2025 he resigned in despair at the wholesale withdrawal of research funds. Since then, Collins has spoken out eloquently against what appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate evidence-based science and its importance in providing a foundation for ongoing medical research. Although Collins' recent experiences lie largely in research institutes, they exemplify crucial issues for universities — largely in the US, but to a lesser degree in many other countries. Some people have a low view of research and scholarship, regarding them as a waste of time and money. They think academics are too liberal, not in touch with ordinary people and need the government to show them what research the country needs. Such was the rationale last year for shifting the focus of the Marsden Fund away from the humanities and social sciences towards STEM subjects (physics, chemistry, maths, engineering and biomedical sciences). Whatever the justification for decisions like this, universities need to be aware of society's expectations. Very simply, universities are dependent upon governments for much of their funding, and while they regard themselves as autonomous, this is a circumscribed autonomy. There has to be respect on both sides, and trust has to be won. Governments and universities cannot exist without each other, no matter how much each may think otherwise. Universities do not have a right to exist, in much the same way that anatomy schools, that have been central to my academic life, do not have a right to dissect human bodies. They do so only with social licence that has been established over many years with strict ethical guidelines. Academic freedom is a much-debated aspect of university functioning that can be threatened and abused in many ways. It only exists within an environment that encourages creativity, innovative ideas and criticism of the status quo. It is the freedom to research interesting and on occasion contentious topics that sometimes tread on the toes of politicians, policy makers and even university authorities. It does not sit easily alongside managerialism and conformity. Its protection requires vigilance and acknowledgement that this freedom is to be earned and defended if it is to be retained. Consider the extreme example of Harvard University, which is being threatened in unimaginable ways by the Trump administration. In refusing to be cowed, its president expressed what universities aspire to be. "Seeking truth ... requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to ... acknowledge our flaws." Universities must be prepared to defend themselves and their contributions to society, to highlight the benefits of universities but also acknowledge their weaknesses. Their ability to adapt is crucial, which is why they have survived for many hundreds of years. This is only possible as they open themselves to the scrutiny of others and reform themselves. Academic staff are crucial in leading change and advocating for new perspectives. In my own disciplinary area, until the mid-20th century anatomists dissected unclaimed bodies of the dead in the absence of informed consent by relatives. It was anatomists themselves who led the way in overturning this practice by insisting that only donated bodies be used. Universities must never forget that their core business is research and educating domestic students. Unfortunately, lack of adequate funding drives dependence upon the income brought in by international students. Their presence brings in welcome cultural diversity as long as they are seen as more than income generators. Turbulent times can be productive if faced head on. But universities must continually re-invent themselves and strive to contribute to and enhance their communities. — Gareth Jones is an emeritus professor, anatomy department, University of Otago.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Promising technologies are not yet ready to replace animal research
A recent op-ed in The Hill praising the National Institutes of Health's new initiative to promote human-based technologies as a 'major victory for animal ethics in science' oversimplifies a far more complex research landscape. While the piece correctly identifies growing support and development of innovative, non-animal approaches, it is misleading in its framing and overstates what this federal initiative actually signals about the future of animal research. Animal studies remain essential to both basic and translational science. From mapping brain circuitry to developing life-saving vaccines, the use of animal models has helped scientists uncover core biological mechanisms and test therapies with a degree of whole-organism complexity that no alternative system can yet match. Research involving animals has been directly responsible for major advances in treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and countless other diseases. To suggest that NIH is ready to 'leave outdated animal experiments behind' is to paint an unrealistic picture of the current scientific landscape. It implies that non-animal alternatives are fully capable of replacing animal studies across the board. In reality, these technologies — while exciting and valuable — are still evolving and have significant limitations. This kind of oversimplification does a disservice not only to the scientific community but also to public understanding. Non-animal research methods such as organ-on-a-chip platforms, computational models and 3D bioprinting hold great promise. They offer different ways to model disease, study mechanisms of action and even predict certain aspects of human physiology. But they are not yet equipped to serve as wholesale replacements for animal research. Instead, they are powerful complementary tools that can be used alongside traditional models to enrich our understanding and refine research methods. This oversimplification misleads people into believing that animal and non-animal model research is either-or, when in most cases, these models work together to address different angles of a research question. Consider Emulate's liver chip. This sophisticated model includes four types of human liver cells and has demonstrated promising applications in toxicology and disease modeling. However, the human liver contains at least seven essential cell types, and critical components are missing from the liver chip. This means the model currently lacks the complexity needed to reliably replicate diseases that affect the entire liver, let alone multiple systems. While the technology shows potential, a recent study demonstrates that there are clear limitations, including the inability to perform long-term studies due to challenges in sustaining human liver cells over time. This is just one example of how non-animal models, although deserving of federal support, still have considerable progress to make before they can completely replace animals — a concept acknowledged by the developers of these technologies. Public trust in science has declined in recent years, leaving the research community with a responsibility to communicate scientific issues with clarity, honesty and appropriate context. However, comparing funding levels for animal models versus non-animal models is an ineffective and misleading way to provide transparency. Funding levels fluctuate from year to year for various reasons, including shifting priorities, new projects and the start or natural conclusion of existing studies. Public reporting of these numbers without further context fails to reflect the true complexity, value and potential outcomes of research. Instead, scientists should take opportunities to discuss the goals of their research, the rationale behind the methods and study design and how funding supports the broader mission of improving human and animal health. Using a variety of models helps to ensure that the best research is being done to benefit patients and their families. While organ-on-a-chip and other non-animal technologies show promise, their limitations prevent them from being a full replacement for many animal models. The development of non-animal methods should not come at the expense of the existing established models that still require animals. To sustain scientific progress and drive the next wave of medical breakthroughs, agencies like NIH should focus on funding the best research possible with the most appropriate available models. Alissa Hatfield, MS, is a science policy manager for the American Physiological Society. Naomi Charalambakis, Ph.D., is the director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Columbia opted to settle with the Trump administration in a high-stakes civil rights case
Columbia to recover $400m in US research funds after civil rights dispute settlement Columbia University is nearing a settlement with the Trump administration that may result in the university paying approximately $200 million to resolve civil rights violation claims. The case centres on allegations that Columbia failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, particularly following tensions that arose during the Israel-Hamas conflict. In addition to the financial settlement, the agreement could see the restoration of around $400 million in federal research funding that had previously been revoked by the Trump administration. Columbia officials are expected to meet White House representatives next week to finalise the terms. Allegations and impact on funding The civil rights complaint against Columbia University accused the institution of not adequately addressing the harassment of Jewish students. As a consequence, on March 7, the Trump administration revoked millions in federal research grants. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) froze nearly all research-related funding to Columbia, including active grant reimbursements. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Zunido no ouvido? Imploro as brasileiras que usem este truque. Receita Anti-Zumbido Undo Grant Watch, a research tracking body, estimated that roughly $1.18 billion in NIH funding had either been suspended or withdrawn. Other federal bodies, including the National Science Foundation, also ceased funding, significantly affecting Columbia's research operations. The university became one of several institutions targeted, alongside Harvard University, Cornell University, and Northwestern University. Preconditions and shift in negotiations In March, following the initial suspension of funds, Columbia agreed to several conditions set by the Trump administration. These included giving campus police authority to arrest students, limiting the use of face coverings during protests, and imposing stricter oversight on the Middle Eastern Studies department. These measures allowed further negotiations on the potential restoration of funding to proceed. Earlier proposals included placing Columbia under long-term federal supervision through a legally binding agreement. However, current negotiations reportedly exclude that requirement. Internal and external responses Columbia's decision to pursue a settlement rather than challenge the federal government in court has drawn criticism within academic circles, where it has been labelled as a form of capitulation. In contrast, Harvard University chose to sue the Trump administration over similar penalties but has recently restarted negotiations to recover its lost funding. Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, defended the decision to negotiate. In a letter addressed to the university community in June, she stated that "Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation." If finalised, Columbia would become the first university to reach a formal settlement with the Trump administration over antisemitism-related allegations that resulted in the loss of federal research funds. The outcome of this case could influence how other academic institutions respond to future federal actions tied to campus conduct and civil rights compliance. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
‘Tremendous uncertainty' for cancer research as US officials target mRNA vaccines
As US regulators restrict Covid mRNA vaccines and as independent vaccine advisers re-examine the shots, scientists fear that an unlikely target could be next: cancer research. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines have shown promise in treating and preventing cancers that have often been difficult to address, such as pancreatic cancer, brain tumors and others. But groundbreaking research could stall as federal and state officials target mRNA shots, including ending federal funding for bird flu mRNA vaccines, restricting who may receive existing mRNA vaccines and, in some places, proposing laws against the vaccines. The Trump administration has also implemented unprecedented cuts to cancer research, among other research cuts and widespread layoffs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At least 16 grants involving the word 'mRNA' have been terminated or frozen, according to the crowdsourced project Grant Watch, and scientists have been told to remove mentions of mRNA vaccines from their research applications, KFF Health News reported in March. Researchers fear that therapeutic cancer vaccines will get 'swept up in that tidal wave' against mRNA vaccines, Aaron Sasson, chief of surgical oncology at Stony Brook University, said in April. When it comes to mRNA breakthroughs, 'the next couple of years are the most critical', Elias Sayour, a professor for pediatric oncology research at the University of Florida, said. 'If the progress we've made to date – which has been prodigious – if that is just stopped or stymied, it can absolutely affect the trajectory and the arc,' he said. The uncertainty around mRNA specifically, and research broadly, could also discourage researchers and institutions from beginning new projects, he said. 'If we continue to seize on these gains in the next 10, 20 years, I do see a scenario where we've completely transformed how we take care of a large swath of human disease,' he said. Research on mRNA cancer vaccines has been under way for more than a decade, with more than 120 clinical trials on treating and preventing cancers. mRNA shots have shown promise for preventing the return of head and neck cancer; lymphoma; breast cancer, which accounts for 11.6% of all cancer deaths in the US; colorectal cancer; lung cancer; and kidney cancer, among others. Pancreatic cancer has a 10% survival rate and is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the US, but in a small study, about half of the patients who received an mRNA vaccine did not see their cancer return, and they still had strong immune responses three years later. Early mRNA vaccine trials also indicated the recurrence of melanoma could be cut in half. And a small study co-authored by Sayour on glioblastoma showed the vaccines started affecting the tumors within 48 hours. Like any vaccine, mRNA cancer vaccines train the body to recognize and destroy harmful cells. Unlike foreign pathogens, such as infectious diseases, cancer is caused by the growth of the patient's own cells. Some cancer vaccines are highly personalized, using a patient's own cancer cells to treat their tumors or train their immune system to kill off those dangerous cells if they recur. 'The ability to create specific vaccines for patients has tremendous, tremendous promise, but that was technology not possible five or 10 years ago,' said Sasson. 'It really is a shift in the paradigm of how we treat cancers.' Researchers are also investigating vaccines that would target cancer cells more broadly by identifying 'fingerprints' of certain cancers, said Sayour. Additionally, the vaccines could be created for other conditions, such as type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, he said. 'It has potential to get rid of a lot of the chronic morbidity we see from disease, to cure diseases that are degenerative, to overcome cancer evolution and cure patients,' Sayour said. 'mRNA could be the healthcare that the movable-type printing press was for human knowledge.' Yet federal and state decision-makers have targeted mRNA vaccines in recent months. Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), reportedly overrode scientists at the agency to limit some Covid vaccines, including a new mRNA shot from Moderna, to children older than 12. Prasad also introduced similar limitations on the Covid shot from Novavax, which does not use mRNA. On Thursday, the FDA approved the original Covid mRNA vaccine from Moderna for children between the ages of six months and 11 years – but they narrowed its use to children with at least one underlying condition. (The vaccine for people older than 12 was approved in 2022.) Prasad argued, in two memos recently released by the FDA, that the risks of Covid had dropped, while 'known and unknown' side-effects could outweigh the benefits of getting vaccinated. Covid remains a leading cause of death in the US, with 178 deaths in the week ending 7 June, the last week for which the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers complete data. At the meeting of the CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) in June, two of the new vaccine advisers – appointed by the health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, after he fired the previous 17 advisers – broached the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, indicating future scrutiny of these shots. Vicky Pebsworth, a registered nurse who has volunteered for years with the National Vaccine Information Center, said she was 'very concerned' about side-effects from the Covid mRNA shots and asked for more data on safety, including 'reproductive toxicity'. Shortly before being appointed to the ACIP, Pebsworth and the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center argued that the FDA should not recommend mRNA Covid-19 shots for anyone 'until adequate scientific evidence demonstrates safety and effectiveness for both the healthy and those who are elderly or chronically ill'. At the June ACIP meeting, Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, said he believed mRNA side-effects were 'being reported at rates that are far exceeding other vaccines even when you normalize to the number of doses, which does suggest something, I think'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Previously, Levi argued: 'The evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death, especially among young people. We have to stop giving them immediately!' Another new ACIP adviser, Robert Malone, has also repeatedly argued against mRNA vaccines. In 2021, Kennedy, then chair of the anti-vaccine organization Children's Health Defense, petitioned the FDA to revoke all approvals, and ban future approvals, of all Covid vaccines. He has called Covid shots the 'deadliest vaccine ever made'. In May, Kennedy changed Covid vaccine recommendations from 'should' to 'may' for children, and eliminated the recommendation for pregnant women entirely. Also in May, the US canceled $766m in contracts for research on mRNA vaccines against H5N1 bird flu. Investment in the mRNA vaccine was not 'scientifically or ethically justifiable', Andrew Nixon, the HHS communications director, said in statements to the media, adding that the 'mRNA technology remains under-tested'. Millions of mRNA vaccines have been given around the world, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in multiple studies. Bans or limitations on mRNA vaccinations have been introduced in seven states. One such bill in Idaho sought to pause 'gene therapy immunizations' for 10 years – a category in which they incorrectly place Covid vaccines, and which could affect other therapeutics. Similarly, in Washington state, commissioners in Franklin county passed a resolution urging the local health facility to stop providing and promoting gene-therapy vaccines; they also incorrectly included Covid mRNA shots in this category. 'There's this scorched-earth mentality now, but I'm hopeful that once the dust settles, we'll be able to reinstate or allow vaccine work for cancer purposes to proceed,' Sasson said. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US, and two in five people will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime. There are currently only two FDA-approved vaccines that prevent cancer – hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) – and both have been targeted by anti-vaccine activists. In January, Trump hosted the launch of Stargate AI at the White House. The project could eventually identify cancers and develop mRNA vaccines in days, Larry Ellison, the chair of the tech company Oracle who is involved with the project, said at the launch. The project will be funded by private, not federal, dollars, but the work on cancer would draw upon research on cancer and mRNA, among other fields. Yet the Trump administration has slashed other critical funding for cancer research, prevention and treatment. The administration canceled more than $180m in grants through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the first three months of its term, and proposed cutting $2.7bn from the cancer center in the next NIH budget. The administration has cut back funding for some family planning providers, which frequently offer screenings for HPV and other cancer markers. Lawmakers have also made enormous cuts to Medicaid and insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which could mean uninsured and underinsured people wait longer for cancer treatment – or forgo it entirely. 'There's the potential for great harm, for massive public health issues to be set aside during this really broad approach of canceling research,' said Sasson. 'There's significant harm that's going to happen by these sweeping changes.' For scientists who still have funding or those who are entering the field, 'there's tremendous uncertainty as to what the future will look like', Sasson said. But he is optimistic that mRNA vaccines for cancer and other illnesses will be able to move forward. Scientists are often portrayed as 'just trying to survive' funding cuts, but that's not entirely accurate, said Sayour, before adding: 'I don't think many people in my field do this because they're just trying to survive. I would want nothing more, honest to God, than to put myself out of business. We do this because we want to make a difference.' Sayour echoed concerns about both indirect and direct forces shaping progress on mRNA vaccines. 'But I also want to be optimistic that our best days are ahead of us,' he said.
