Latest news with #NIH-supported
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Science is Utah's quiet engine — don't stall it with cuts to important funding
Science quietly powers Utah's prosperity. From lifesaving diagnostics at ARUP Laboratories and cutting-edge biotech startups to clean energy research at Utah State and drought-resistant crops developed through university partnerships, science is behind much of what makes life in Utah better, longer and more secure. 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.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Plan to restructure NIH would stall science, not streamline it
As budget negotiations heat up in Washington, the fate of the National Institutes of Health hangs in the balance. While most attention has understandably focused on proposals to slash its funding by as much as 40 percent, another, equally troubling idea is quietly gaining traction: a complete reorganization of the NIH's structure. One recent proposal by members in Congress would consolidate the NIH's 27 specialized institutes into just eight, claiming it would reduce redundancy and improve efficiency. But this plan would not streamline science — it would stall it. Merging smaller institutes into larger ones would increase bureaucracy, not reduce it. And let's be honest: When has more government bureaucracy ever led to more innovation? Reorganizing the NIH may sound like modernization in theory. In practice, it would unleash years of administrative upheaval — rewriting missions, reassigning staff, restructuring advisory councils and disrupting funding priorities. The resulting delays would slow our country's scientific engine and give major global competitors like China a chance to pull ahead in the race for leadership in biotechnology and medicine, putting both our innovation and national security at risk. America's world-leading biomedical research ecosystem depends on the NIH — industries that support more than 10 million U.S. jobs and generate more than $3 trillion in economic activity, about 11.5 percent of our GDP. Discoveries made in university labs with NIH funding are developed into life-saving treatments by private pharmaceutical and biotech companies. In fact, 99.4 percent of FDA-approved drugs are based on NIH-supported research. Everyone who has ever taken medication, from ibuprofen for a headache to immunotherapy for cancer, has benefited from this powerful public-private partnership, with the NIH at its heart. The NIH is the most successful biomedical research institution in human history, envied by countries that have spent decades trying to replicate its model. Why? Because it works. The current system of specialized institutes at the NIH has led to transformative breakthroughs in cancer therapies, heart disease treatments, infertility, brain-machine interfaces and countless others. These achievements did not happen in spite of the NIH's structure, they happened because of it. One of NIH's greatest strengths is that each institute focuses on a specific public health challenge, from cancer and aging to mental health and infectious disease. These are not bureaucratic silos; they are engines of innovation, each tailored to the unique biology of the conditions they study. Specialized research is essential because what works for treating cancer will not work for understanding the causes of autism. It's apples and oranges. Here is one example of how the proposed reorganization could harm science: Institutes that currently focus separately on neurological disorders, oral health and vision would be combined into a single 'Institute for Neuroscience and Brain Research.' No clear explanation has been given, but the reasoning seems to be purely anatomical—if it is in the head, it can be studied together. This would lump together research on Parkinson's disease, tooth development and blindness, despite their vastly different biology and treatment needs. The result won't be the best apples and oranges ever grown — it'll be fruit sludge. Why consider such a sweeping overhaul? While consolidation is often promoted as a path to efficiency and modernization, the broader implications raise serious concerns. Reducing the number of institutes would concentrate decision-making power, increasing the risk of political influence over scientific priorities. Currently, each institute director has significant autonomy in how congressionally appropriated funds are spent — a structure designed to protect research agendas from shifting political winds. Diluting this decentralization would make science more vulnerable to ideological pressure from either side of the aisle. At a time when public trust in the NIH is already strained, the proposed reform would only deepen the problem. Equally concerning, merging institutes may diminish the role of patient advocacy groups that have long supported specialized research efforts. These groups do more than lobby policymakers, they help ensure that NIH priorities remain aligned with the needs of patients. Forcing them to compete for attention within broader, less focused institutes could weaken their impact and silence the voices of the patients they represent. There is no question that the NIH must evolve to meet today's scientific and societal challenges. Many scientists agree that some reform is long overdue. With a new director now leading the NIH, there is a real opportunity to strengthen its foundation, help it respond more effectively to today's health challenges and restore public trust. But the proposed reorganization is no such reform. It is a blunt instrument — one that would weaken the very foundation of America's scientific leadership in biomedical research, with consequences that could last for generations. Cory Miller is a professor at the University of California-San Diego who has been continuously funded by the NIH for more than 20 years, served on numerous NIH grant review sessions and been involved in several NIH committees. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
29-05-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Plan to restructure NIH would stall science, not streamline it
As budget negotiations heat up in Washington, the fate of the National Institutes of Health hangs in the balance. While most attention has understandably focused on proposals to slash its funding by as much as 40 percent, another, equally troubling idea is quietly gaining traction: a complete reorganization of the NIH's structure. One recent proposal by members in Congress would consolidate the NIH's 27 specialized institutes into just eight, claiming it would reduce redundancy and improve efficiency. But this plan would not streamline science — it would stall it. Merging smaller institutes into larger ones would increase bureaucracy, not reduce it. And let's be honest: When has more government bureaucracy ever led to more innovation? Reorganizing the NIH may sound like modernization in theory. In practice, it would unleash years of administrative upheaval — rewriting missions, reassigning staff, restructuring advisory councils and disrupting funding priorities. The resulting delays would slow our country's scientific engine and give major global competitors like China a chance to pull ahead in the race for leadership in biotechnology and medicine, putting both our innovation and national security at risk. America's world-leading biomedical research ecosystem depends on the NIH — industries that support more than 10 million U.S. jobs and generate more than $3 trillion in economic activity, about 11.5 percent of our GDP. Discoveries made in university labs with NIH funding are developed into life-saving treatments by private pharmaceutical and biotech companies. In fact, 99.4 percent of FDA-approved drugs are based on NIH-supported research. Everyone who has ever taken medication, from ibuprofen for a headache to immunotherapy for cancer, has benefited from this powerful public-private partnership, with the NIH at its heart. The NIH is the most successful biomedical research institution in human history, envied by countries that have spent decades trying to replicate its model. Why? Because it works. The current system of specialized institutes at the NIH has led to transformative breakthroughs in cancer therapies, heart disease treatments, infertility, brain-machine interfaces and countless others. These achievements did not happen in spite of the NIH's structure, they happened because of it. One of NIH's greatest strengths is that each institute focuses on a specific public health challenge, from cancer and aging to mental health and infectious disease. These are not bureaucratic silos; they are engines of innovation, each tailored to the unique biology of the conditions they study. Specialized research is essential because what works for treating cancer will not work for understanding the causes of autism. It's apples and oranges. Here is one example of how the proposed reorganization could harm science: Institutes that currently focus separately on neurological disorders, oral health and vision would be combined into a single 'Institute for Neuroscience and Brain Research.' No clear explanation has been given, but the reasoning seems to be purely anatomical—if it is in the head, it can be studied together. This would lump together research on Parkinson's disease, tooth development and blindness, despite their vastly different biology and treatment needs. The result won't be the best apples and oranges ever grown — it'll be fruit sludge. Why consider such a sweeping overhaul? While consolidation is often promoted as a path to efficiency and modernization, the broader implications raise serious concerns. Reducing the number of institutes would concentrate decision-making power, increasing the risk of political influence over scientific priorities. Currently, each institute director has significant autonomy in how congressionally appropriated funds are spent — a structure designed to protect research agendas from shifting political winds. Diluting this decentralization would make science more vulnerable to ideological pressure from either side of the aisle. At a time when public trust in the NIH is already strained, the proposed reform would only deepen the problem. Equally concerning, merging institutes may diminish the role of patient advocacy groups that have long supported specialized research efforts. These groups do more than lobby policymakers, they help ensure that NIH priorities remain aligned with the needs of patients. Forcing them to compete for attention within broader, less focused institutes could weaken their impact and silence the voices of the patients they represent. There is no question that the NIH must evolve to meet today's scientific and societal challenges. Many scientists agree that some reform is long overdue. With a new director now leading the NIH, there is a real opportunity to strengthen its foundation, help it respond more effectively to today's health challenges and restore public trust. But the proposed reorganization is no such reform. It is a blunt instrument — one that would weaken the very foundation of America's scientific leadership in biomedical research, with consequences that could last for generations. Cory Miller is a professor at the University of California-San Diego who has been continuously funded by the NIH for more than 20 years, served on numerous NIH grant review sessions and been involved in several NIH committees.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump's NIH funding cuts halt Indiana's life-saving research
Cancer. Diabetes. Sickle cell. Cystic fibrosis. Thanks to decades of research funding from the National Institutes of Health, people suffering from these and countless other debilitating diseases live longer, healthier lives. It's estimated that 99% of medications approved in the 2010s were supported by NIH-funded research. Breakthrough treatments created by pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly & Co. are built on foundational studies funded by the NIH. If you've been to the doctor and received treatment, that treatment was very likely built on NIH-supported research. Opinion: DOGE fired me. I'll be fine, but America is in trouble. The NIH is a powerful engine of American ingenuity and productivity. NIH funding has incredible returns: beyond lives saved, every research dollar spent generates about $2.50 in economic activity. Indiana is a major beneficiary of NIH funding. In 2023, NIH grants generated $1.1 billion in economic activity in Indiana and supported 5,359 jobs such as mine as a researcher at Ball State University. My lab has been funded by the NIH for over a decade. We study how cells handle the kind of 'molecular garbage' that piles up in the brains of patients with neurodegenerative diseases (like what my grandmother Marmee suffered with). With NIH funds, my team recently discovered that a microscopic protein motor helps cells destroy molecular garbage. Our NIH-supported work could lead to improved treatments and longer, healthier lives for people with dementia-related diseases. In addition, my lab trains Indiana's biomedical workforce. Many students who conduct research in my NIH-funded lab go on to work in industry labs (like those at Eli Lilly) and academic institutions, where they perform groundbreaking research that improves the health of Americans. However, beginning January 27, a series of executive actions froze virtually all new federal grants, effectively grinding NIH-funded research to a halt. These cuts will be devastating to the economy and life-saving research conducted by scientists in Indiana. While the initial executive order has been challenged in court, the administration has found procedural loopholes to stop new life-saving research funding from being distributed. This blockade not only prevents the ability to pay for lab personnel salaries and research supplies, but it also cuts funds for research support staff, administrative and maintenance staff, IT, libraries, facilities and equipment upkeep, and more. These people and resources are essential to sustaining life-saving and economy-boosting research. Gutted NIH funding will lead to hiring reductions and freezes (making it more difficult and dangerous to conduct research) and rapid deterioration of state-of-the-art scientific facilities. If NIH funding reductions are made permanent, some universities will likely stop supporting the submission of NIH grants altogether, resulting in the shuttering of entire research programs, loss of jobs, and a failure to make life-saving discoveries. Dominoes are already falling. Some institutions have enacted hiring freezes. Several graduate programs have paused PhD student admissions. Federally funded summer internship programs that launch young scientists' careers have been canceled, and impactful programs and grants that reduce barriers to participation in STEM have been frozen. I know of multiple promising students who have questioned their decisions to pursue scientific careers. We are on the verge of losing a cohort of transformative young scientists. They are amazing — my colleagues and I teach them in our classes and mentor them in our research labs. If NIH funding is not soon restored, careers will end, labs will close, and life-saving discoveries will not be made. The sledgehammering of NIH funding will derail American biomedical science for a long, long time. Eric 'VJ' Rubenstein is the Thomas E. and Karen Bumb Lauer Distinguished Professor of Natural Sciences and Professor of Biology at Ball State University, where NIH funding to his lab has supported 20 peer-reviewed biomedical scientific publications and the training of 60 early-career scientists. Rubenstein is a member of the Ball State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: NIH funding treats cancer, diabetes. That's over, for now. | Opinion
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NIH research saves lives in Indiana. Freezing it has consequences.
As academic physicians and health researchers, we are deeply committed to improving the health of Indiana families and communities. One of the most critical tools in achieving this goal is the funding provided by the National Institutes of Health. In late January, all NIH communications and meetings were paused, putting the future of NIH operations in question. An additional announcement about a drastic reduction in administrative cost reimbursement rates for federal grants raises more concerns. Opinion: What Trump gets right, and wrong, in cutting U.S. security costs abroad While the courts have weighed in, massive confusion persists. This pause and decrease in administrative cost support has major consequences for scientific research personnel and public health communication. It's essential for Hoosiers to understand why NIH funding and operations matters — not just to scientists, research staff, and doctors, but to all of us. NIH funding saves lives. It has revolutionized diabetes care, turning what was once a devastating diagnosis into a manageable condition through new insulin formulations and technologies. NIH-supported discoveries transformed HIV/AIDS from a deadly infection into a chronic illness and developed cancer treatments that are extending and improving lives. Here in Indiana, we see the impact of NIH funding every day. At institutions like Indiana University School of Medicine, Purdue University and the University of Notre Dame, researchers tackle many critical health challenges and improve public health for vulnerable communities across the state. One standout example is the Indiana Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, which is one of the largest in the country and has brought in over $50 million in NIH research funds. Programs like this don't just save lives — they also improve the well being of Indiana families and position our state as a leader in healthcare innovation, attracting investment and talent. NIH funding fuels our economy. In 2024, Indiana received over $414 million in NIH grants, generating over $1.1 billion in economic activity. These funds directly support over 5,000 jobs in research, health care and related industries, with benefits that ripple through our local economy. Every dollar invested in the NIH generates $2.64 in economic activity — a return on investment that benefits all of us. It further improves recruitment of talent to our state in both the academic and private sectors. Indiana's life sciences sector, anchored by companies like Eli Lilly and Co., relies on NIH-funded discoveries to develop groundbreaking drugs and treatments. An analysis published in 2023 revealed that 99.4% of all FDA-approved drugs from 2010 to 2019 were associated with NIH funding at some stage of development. These advancements not only improve health but also contribute billions to our state's economy. Supporting the NIH is not a partisan issue; it is a profoundly human one. Whether it's a new cancer treatment, a breakthrough in Alzheimer's research, or a vaccine to prevent the next pandemic, we all reap the rewards of NIH-funded innovation. As Hoosiers, we should take pride in the contributions our universities and private institutions make to improving health and advancing science. But these achievements are only possible with sustained federal support for the NIH. We urge our fellow Indiana residents to advocate for continued and increased NIH funding. Contact your representatives and senators, share your support, and ensure that Indiana remains at the forefront of health and innovation. By doing so, we are investing in a healthier future for ourselves and for generations to come. Gabriel Bosslet is a professor of clinical medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Tracey Wilkinson is an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Natalia Rodriguez is an associate professor of public health at Purdue University. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Trump's NIH pause has consequences for Indiana | Opinion
