Latest news with #NationalInstitutesOfHealth
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Perspective: I'm a Harvard professor. Here's why publicly funded scientific research matters
Drastic budget cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies have put federally funded university research into the spotlight. As a professor at Harvard, I've recently been asked why the U.S. government funds university research and why universities with endowments, like Harvard, don't fund their own research through their endowments. After two decades of being a professor and part-time entrepreneur, I understand why people ask this question, and it's a fair one. Today, more than ever, we as a nation need to work toward open respectful dialogue that cross-cuts political ideologies. To that end, I'm always happy to share my perspective, which is that federally funded research is a public good with proven benefits. While Harvard is in the spotlight right now, such research goes on across the country, from Brigham Young University to the University of Minnesota to Kent State. You have personally benefited from it, in fact, if you take one of today's popular weight-loss drugs, or wear a seat belt in your car. First, some background on how this collaboration began: During World War II, the federal government began providing funding for university scientists to do research related to the war effort. The benefits soon became clear. Universities were more nimble and cost-effective than federal labs that would need thousands of staff scientists and dedicated facilities. And universities already employed scientists across a diversity of fields who could collaborate on projects as needed. As such, to maintain U.S. intellectual leadership, the government established many of the funding agencies that exist today. The process is designed for efficiency, in multiple ways. Scientists compete for federal research dollars. The government issues requests for proposals on topics that reflect federal and societal priorities, and scientists submit proposals to compete for these grants. It often takes scientists months to develop a robust research plan and a federally compliant budget, and universities largely bear the associated costs. The proposals are critically reviewed by program officers and by a panel of peers. 'Peers' in this context are colleagues who are knowledgeable in the field and can judge the quality of the proposals. Peers with conflicts of interest are disqualified. The competition for funds, which are usually insufficient to award all meritorious proposals, is so fierce that, success rates at many agencies range from 8% to 30%. The amount of financial support awarded also varies by field. Biomedical research, engineering, computer science and chemistry programs typically have access to higher levels of funding to support the higher costs of this work. In contrast, support for scientific fields such as zoology and anthropology is far more modest. Federal research grants, by design, include direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are funds to be spent solely on the approved specific activities. These can include research supplies, graduate student stipends and economy-class travel to field sites and professional conferences. Indirect costs are meant to offset the cost of building maintenance, safety officers, and administrators who ensure that scholars are spending federal tax dollars appropriately. Indirect costs, while controversial, can save taxpayer dollars. For example, indirect-cost funding can be used to acquire shared equipment such as DNA sequencers that can be used by the entire research community, alleviating the need for each scientist to purchase their own equipment. It's important to know that indirect costs are not blank checks to universities. They are not slush funds; they cannot be used to build fancy gymnasiums or host lavish parties. They are, however, a means of incentivizing universities to maintain state-of-the-art facilities that serve the public good. Indirect cost rates are set every few years by the government, which bases the rate on a variety of factors such as the scope of the research at each institution. A liberal arts college might have a 10% rate, meaning the award will include the direct costs plus an additional 10% to offset the administrative and infrastructure needs. A world-leading research university might be given 65% to maintain or operate state-of-the-art facilities such as MRIs or particle accelerators. All institutions receiving such funds must adhere to a strict set of accounting requirements or risk severe penalties. Today, increases in material costs and a complex state/federal regulatory landscape put financial and administrative pressure on universities, and the indirect supplement can easily exceed the actual cost of the research, leaving universities to scramble to find additional funds to cover those costs. Most notably, endowments and gifts cannot replace federal research funds. Endowments are financial gifts meant to provide long-term support for a specific activity, such as paying a professorial salary line or maintaining a building named for the donor. Many endowments support priceless collections, such as the Harvard University library, which holds 400 million manuscripts, 10 million photographs and 1 million maps. These holdings are part of our collective national heritage, and their curation and maintenance come at little or no cost to the taxpayer. Though it is tempting to think that philanthropy can assume the role of federal funding, that idea is impractical. Very few people make unrestricted donations to a university, and fewer yet make donations large enough to replace federal research support. Put simply, endowments cannot fully support university research in the long term, and even AI won't end the need for such research, which leads to innovation and economic opportunity. Federally funded research serves the public good; it is done for the people, by the people. It leads to new technologies, from medical treatments to artificial intelligence. For example, research on Gila monster venom (North America's only venomous lizard) contributed to the development of the popular GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Seat belts were invented with help from research at the University of Minnesota; the LCD display, via Kent State; organ transplants, via Harvard; and Parkinson's disease diagnostics via Brigham Young University. And, of course, universities also provide training opportunities for the next generation of scientists and engineers, most of whom enter the private sector. The U.S. spends less than 3.5% of its GDP on research. Reducing or eliminating federal research will not lead to a significant reduction in our national debt. It will, however, stifle the technological developments that lead to economic growth. It will make us more vulnerable to threats from other nations who will relish the opportunity to gain any technological and economic advantage. Federally funded research is a great deal for the American public. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. As with all large, complex enterprises, there are factors that hinder progress and waste resources, and these do need to be addressed. But publicly funded research is one of our country's engines of innovation, and emptying the proverbial fuel tank ensures that we will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Peter Girguis is a professor of marine science and technology at Harvard University. He studies how microbes and animals survive in the deep sea. He founded an ocean fuel cell company and serves as an advisor for several ocean philanthropies.
CNA
25-05-2025
- Health
- CNA
Do women need more protein around menopause? Yes, but not as much as some claim
There are various claims online that eating a lot of protein is important for women in perimenopause and beyond. Is that true? In an Instagram post to her 1.3 million followers, Dr Vonda Wright, an orthopaedic sports surgeon in Orlando, Florida, describes how she consumes at least 130g of protein per day. Among her regular meal rotations are egg whites, protein shakes, beef sticks and several large servings of meat. On social media, Dr Wright encourages middle-aged women to eat a lot of protein, often recommending that they consume up to one gram of protein per pound of 'ideal' body weight, or the weight they aspire to. That's far more protein than federal guidelines and most nutrition experts recommend. In an interview with The Times, Dr Wright said that this amount can help keep women strong, and prevent issues like hip fractures as they age. Is she right? We asked scientists and dietitians for their take. HOW MUCH PROTEIN DO WOMEN IN MIDLIFE NEED? As women approach menopause — a process that typically begins in their 40s – their bodies usually change, said Annina Burns, a dietitian at the National Institutes of Health who has a doctorate in public health. They often gain weight, particularly in the midsection, for example; and that's linked with certain health risks, such as for cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes, Dr Burns said. At the same time, women usually lose bone and muscle, increasing their risk for osteoporosis, fractures and frailty, Dr Burns said. Consuming enough protein, especially when paired with strength training, may help stave off those changes, she added. Federal health experts recommend that adults consume at least 0.36g of protein per pound of body weight per day. For a 150-pound (68kg) woman, this translates to 54g of protein, a target easily hit with a meal of one cup of cooked lentils and a 4.5-ounce (127g) chicken breast. But Dr Burns and other experts said that middle-aged women might want to consider consuming more than this – about 25 to 50 per cent more than the federal recommendation – to blunt some of the changes associated with menopause and aging. Some compelling, if limited, research suggests, for example, that postmenopausal women who consume this amount are less likely to become frail or fracture bones over time compared with those who consume less protein. Eating more protein may also help women transitioning into menopause gain less weight, in part by keeping them sated, said Katherine Black, an associate professor of human nutrition at the University of Otago in New Zealand. If you are actively losing weight, following a higher-protein diet – especially in tandem with strength training – may also help to prevent you from losing too much muscle, she added. For women who are very active, there is some evidence that consuming even more protein – up to twice the federal recommendation – may lead to very slight gains in muscle mass and strength, said Stuart Phillips, a professor of kinesiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. But would up to one gram of protein per pound of body weight – or nearly three times the federal recommendation, as Dr Wright and many influencers on social media claim – be even better? Dr Phillips and other experts said that there was no evidence for this. When asked for studies backing this recommendation, Dr Wright did not provide them. She said she recommended this amount in part because it was easy for her patients to calculate and remember. ARE YOU GETTING ENOUGH? Most women in the United States meet and often exceed the federal recommendation for protein, but between 10 and 25 per cent of those aged 31 to 70 do not. To ensure you're getting enough, you can figure out how much you need and then track your meals for a few days, using a pen and paper or an app like MyFitnessPal. If you're falling short, consider where you could add more. Many women don't get enough protein at breakfast, for example, said Elizabeth Ward, a dietitian in Reading, Massachusetts, and co-author of the book The Menopause Diet Plan. During the morning rush, they may grab something easy, like a piece of toast, which may not have much protein, she said. A cup of nonfat Greek yogurt, on the other hand, offers 25 grams. It's also helpful to prioritise protein at lunch. Incorporate protein-rich foods like beans, canned tuna and chicken breasts. And don't forget high-protein snacks like cottage cheese or dry-roasted edamame beans, Ward said. Eating well during this stage of life is not just about protein, however, Dr Burns said. Following a balanced, Mediterranean-style diet that includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein sources and healthy fats can help reduce your risk for various conditions like cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer, she said. If you're worried about muscle and bone loss as you age, Dr Phillips said, it's most important to incorporate regular strength training. 'That makes the cake,' he said, 'and protein is this thin layer of icing over top.'
CBS News
22-05-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Could weight loss drugs help prevent cancer? Here's what a new study found.
Weight loss drugs could help treat a type of liver disease. Here's what to know. Studies have shown the popular weight loss drugs known as GLP-1 agonists may be helpful for more than just curbing appetite — and new research is looking at their potential impact on cancer risk. GLP-1 drugs include popular brand names like Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound. In the observational study, released Thursday ahead of being presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, researchers found GLP-1s may modestly reduce the risk of 14 obesity-related cancers, especially colorectal cancer, when compared to a different type of medication often used to treat diabetes, known as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DDP-4) inhibitors, which don't have the same weight loss effect. "Patients who took GLP-1 receptor agonists had a 7% lower risk of developing an obesity-related cancer and an 8% lower risk of death from any cause compared to those who took a DDP-4 inhibitor," the authors noted. The study looked at 170,030 adults with obesity and diabetes from 43 health system in the United States. While the difference between the two treatments was not statistically significant for men, the study found women treated with GLP-1s had an 8% lower risk of obesity-related cancer and a 20% lower risk of all causes of death compared to those treated with DDP-4 inhibitors. The authors of the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said they hope to continue their research longer than four years and with those who do not have diabetes. "I see many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is important," Dr. Robin Zon, American Society of Clinical Oncology president, said in a news release. "Though this trial does not establish causation, it hints that these drugs might have a preventative effect. Future research is needed to validate these findings, including in patients who do not have diabetes." An American Cancer Society study, published last year in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, found more than 40% of all cancer fatalities among adults age 30 and over in the United States could be linked to lifestyle risks that could be changed, including smoking, excess body weight, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity and diet.
Bloomberg
22-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
MIT Cuts Grad Student Slots by 8% as Trump Cuts Weigh on Budget
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is enrolling fewer graduate students in its vaunted research programs and laying off employees as the Trump administration's squeeze on universities muddles its financial outlook. President Donald Trump has slashed funding and reimbursements made through the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies, key sources of support for research-oriented universities like MIT. The school also faces significantly steeper taxes on its endowment under legislation that passed the US House of Representatives.
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
The President Will Destroy You Now
One thing stands out amid all the chaos, corruption and disorder: the wanton destructiveness of the Trump presidency. The targets of Trump's assaults include the law, higher education, medical research, ethical standards, America's foreign alliances, free speech, the civil service, religion, the media and much more. J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush, succinctly described his own view of the Trump presidency, writing by email that there has never before Some of the damage Trump has inflicted can be repaired by future administrations, but repairing relations with American allies, the restoration of lost government expertise and a return to productive research may take years, even with a new and determined president and Congress. Let's look at just one target of the administration's vendetta, medical research. Trump's attacks include cancellation of thousands of grants, cuts in the share of grants going to universities and hospitals; and proposed cuts of 40 percent or more in the budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Science Foundation. 'This is going to completely kneecap biomedical research in this country,' Jennifer Zeitzer, deputy executive director at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, told Science Magazine. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, warned that cuts will 'totally destroy the nation's public health infrastructure.' I asked scholars of the presidency to evaluate the scope of Trump's wreckage. 'The gutting of expertise and experience going on right now under the blatantly false pretext of eliminating fraud and waste,' Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, wrote by email, 'is catastrophic and may never be completely repaired.' I asked Wilentz whether Trump was unique with respect to his destructiveness or if there were presidential precedents. Wilentz replied: Another question: Was Trump re-elected to promote an agenda of wreaking havoc, or is he pursuing an elitist right-wing program created by conservative ideologues who saw in Trump's election the opportunity to pursue their goals? Wilentz's reply: I asked Andrew Rudalevige, a political scientist at Bowdoin, how permanent the mayhem Trump has inflicted may prove to be. 'Not to be flip,' Rudalevige replied by email, 'but for children abroad denied food or lifesaving medicine because of arbitrary aid cuts the answer is already distressingly permanent.' From a broader perspective, Rudalevige wrote: I sent the question I posed to Wilentz to other scholars of the presidency. It produced a wide variety of answers. Here is Rudalevige's: Another question: How much is Trump's second term agenda the invention of conservative elites and how much is it a response to the demands of Trump's MAGA supporters? 'Trump is not at all an unwitting victim,' Rudalevige wrote, 'but those around him with wider and more systemic goals have more authority and are better organized in pursuit of those goals than they were in the first term.' In this context, Rudalevige continued, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 In the past, when presidential power has expanded, Rudalevige argued, One widely shared view among those I queried is that Trump has severely damaged American's relations with traditional allies everywhere. Mara Rudman, a professor at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, wrote in an email: Trump is not unique in his destructiveness, in Rudman's view, Trump's second term agenda, Rudman argued, is elite-driven: Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, shares the belief that Trump has taken a wrecking ball to foreign relations. Cain emailed me his assessment: Similarly, Cain continued, Cain argued that in both economics and politics, destruction can have beneficial results, but not in the case of Donald Trump. Musk and Trump, in Cain's view, 'are driven more by instinct than knowledge, vindictiveness than good intentions and impatience than carefully designed plans.' They In ranking the most destructive presidents, the scholars I contacted mentioned both Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president for political studies at the Niskanen Center, a center-left libertarian think tank, wrote by email: Paul Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush and a lecturer in law at George Washington University, was even more pessimistic, writing in an email that he fears that Rosenzweig believes that I asked the experts I contacted whether Trump was laying the groundwork for a more autocratic form of government in the United States. Robert Strong, a professor of political economy at Washington and Lee, replied by email: From a different vantage point, Ellen Fitzgerald, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire, questioned the value of trying to determine 'whether Trump is the most corrupt and/or most destructive president in U.S. history.' Such evaluations Despite those cautions, Fitzpatrick acknowledged that 'it's fair to say that if we look at the arc of American history from Reconstruction to the current day, there's no question that Trump is busily destroying much of what several generations of Americans worked very, very hard to achieve.' 'The anti-immigrant sentiment of the late 19th and early twentieth century,' Fitzpatrick wrote, and 'the rhetoric abroad in the land today': Some of those I questioned argued that Trump's assault on American institutions and values is not supported by most of his voters. Russell Riley, professor of ethics and co-chairman of the Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program, took this view a step farther, noting that Trump explicitly dissociated himself from Project 2025 during the campaign and then, once in office, adopted much of the Project 2025 agenda: Trump, in contrast, 'barely won the popular vote, with just under 50 percent — hardly an electoral mandate, even for an incremental program. Indeed as a candidate Mr. Trump openly distanced himself from Project 2025.' Lacking both a clear mandate and an electorate explicitly supportive of Project 2025, Riley argued, means The reality, however, is that the abdication of power by Republicans in Congress has allowed Trump to create a mandate out of whole cloth. Where will this frightening development take us? The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@
