The Shaking of the Scientific Bedrock

This Monday, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) came out with a formal statement regarding the recent actions of the new administration toward the NIH. As uncertainty grows, an increasing number of prominent scientific institutions are openly discussing the imperative to defend the deep foundation of biomedical research that is funded, at its core, largely through the NIH.

“At a time when the scientific community is making unprecedented strides in cancer research – advancing precision medicine, immunotherapy, and early detection technologies – continued investments in biomedical discovery and research are more effective and promising than ever before. The weakening of the NIH threatens to halt this momentum, delaying the development of new therapies and limiting access to some clinical trials.”

It’s still unclear whether the temporary block on a dramatic decrease in federal grant funding, which is currently focused on research overhead (labeled “indirect costs"), will take effect. As of this posting, the hearing is set for tomorrow, February 21^st. However, the concern is widespread across the scientific community, regardless of institution type or funding mechanism. The opportunity costs of important, federally funded research are well understood.

From Research Through to the Clinic

Far beyond early research funding, the potential medical breakthroughs already working their way through the clinic, would be jeopardized. According to the AACR, cancer clinical trials have already been put on hold in the past two weeks and cancer centers are struggling. These sorts of programs have enabled countless life-saving advancements in our lifetimes.

“Notably, the death rate from cancer has fallen 34% in the last 30 years as hundreds of new therapies and prevention strategies have been discovered and validated with NIH funding. The death rate from breast cancer has dropped 42% since 1989, and survival of children with cancer is now 85%, up from 58% in the mid-1970s at the time when [National Cancer Institute (NCI)] cancer centers were formed as an integral part of the National Cancer Program.”

The Loss of Public Health’s Younger Generation

The additional layoffs of thousands of “probationary” workers across HHS this week, including at the NIH, CDC, FDA, and NCI, have further rocked the scientific community. Since federal “probationary” workers are typically more recent hires and often earlier in their careers, it’s deeply disappointing for both them as well as for us. Who can predict what these talented individuals might have brought to the public health sphere in the coming years – with all of us as the beneficiaries? Even with short-term cost savings, it’s unclear whether these cuts would indeed be a net economic gain for the country.

“According to a report from United for Medical Research (UMR), research funding from NIH generated $92.89 billion in new economic activity nationwide last year — or $2.46 of economic activity for every $1 of research funding. NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy, published annually by UMR, also found that the $37.81 billion awarded to researchers in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia in Fiscal Year 2023 supported 412,041 jobs.”

A Partnership Across the Scientific Community

As we move forward in an unknown and fractured landscape, a section of the AACR’s statement says it succinctly :

“The pharmaceutical [and biotech] industry is a partner in this progress, but it relies on NIH-funded researchers to conduct discovery research that fuels the pipeline of new therapies. Any disruption in NIH funding risks delaying or even halting these vital clinical trials, thus diminishing the potential for lifesaving progress.”