The Trump administration will illegally slash federal funding for medical research needed by universities, hospitals, and other scientific institutions by more than $4 billion a year, putting millions of lives in danger and losing America’s competitive edge to adversaries like Communist China.
Although the US could have averted 40% of the deaths from Covid-19, had the Republican not failed to take the coronavirus outbreak seriously, Trump also dismissed many officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who have played a crucial role in responding to such health threats as the recent Ebola outbreaks.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed on Friday that it would reduce its support for “indirect” costs associated with research projects by $4 billion annually, starting immediately.
Indirect costs cover essential administrative and operational expenses, such as building maintenance, research support staff, and administrative tasks.
This move will dismantle the biomedical research system, stifle the development of new cures for diseases, and rip treatments away from patients in need. It is another illegal action by the Trump administration because it violates a bipartisan law enacted by Congress that prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect costs.
The NIH claims that these funds, while necessary, are taking away from direct research costs, which it believes should receive more attention. “The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” the NIH stated in its announcement.
The new policy will impose a cap of 15% for indirect costs on all grants, replacing the previous system where the overhead rate could be as high as 60%. This change comes amid claims that some institutions, particularly those with large endowments, have been overcharging the government for administrative expenses. The NIH cited prestigious universities like Harvard and Yale as examples, suggesting they may not need additional federal funding for overhead.
At the CDC, personnel cuts reportedly affect senior scientists, epidemiologists, and emergency response coordinators who were directly involved in the containment and prevention efforts during previous outbreaks of the virus, including the 2014 West Africa outbreak and the more recent cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
These individuals have been credited with successfully mitigating the risk of the virus spreading beyond outbreak zones.
The dismissed officials were part of a specialized team that had established effective strategies for controlling the spread of Ebola, including rapid response protocols, surveillance, and coordination with international health organizations. Experts say their expertise and experience have been vital in preventing the transmission of Ebola to the U.S. in past outbreaks.
While supporters of the policy, including figures like billionaire Elon Musk and proponents of reducing government spending, have lauded the decision as a necessary move to curb excessive administrative costs, the response from the academic community has been one of alarm.
Critics argue that the cut could severely undermine ongoing research projects, potentially halting clinical trials, jeopardizing jobs, and reducing the nation’s ability to innovate in critical fields such as cancer and heart disease research.
“With NIH support, scientists across the United States and around the world conduct wide-ranging research to discover ways to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability,” said Lisa McCormick, an advocate for lifesaving investments in scientific inquiry.
“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” said Matt Owens, president of the Council on Government Relations, expressing concern that the policy would have devastating consequences.
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, warned that some laboratories had already begun to shut down in response to the new policy.
He predicted that lawsuits would be filed to challenge the policy, particularly citing concerns over its legality given existing laws governing NIH funding.
Democrats have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the cuts while Republicans have quietly accepted the administration’s emasculation of Congress.
Senator Patty Murray condemned the move, warning it would “imperil clinical research, patient care, and laboratory operations.”
“By proposing an illegal and arbitrary indirect cost rate, Trump and Elon are functionally forcing an indiscriminate funding cut for research institutions across the country that will be nothing short of catastrophic for so much of the lifesaving research patients and families are counting on,” said Murray. “Sick kids may not get the treatment they need. Clinical trials may be shut down abruptly with dangerous consequences. Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives.”
She also pointed to bipartisan legislation passed in the previous year that had specifically prohibited changes to NIH’s funding for overhead costs.
The Trump administration has defended the policy, arguing that it will redirect funds toward more direct scientific research and help streamline government spending. White House spokesman Kush Desai stated that critics were misrepresenting the policy’s effects. “Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less,” Desai said.
This new policy follows a history of proposed reductions to federal funds for indirect costs, including a similar proposal in 2017 under the Trump administration that was abandoned under pressure from academic leaders. The NIH’s new policy represents the latest push from the Trump administration to limit federal funding for what it sees as unnecessary administrative expenses.
Researchers have expressed frustration, noting that indirect costs cover vital infrastructure that supports scientific progress, from building maintenance to support staff. While private foundations often contribute to research, they typically provide much lower rates for indirect costs, which researchers argue puts additional strain on institutions.
The NIH’s decision to cap indirect funding at 15% aligns with practices in private research foundations, which generally fund lower overhead costs. However, many researchers view this as an unrealistic expectation given the scope of the infrastructure required to carry out high-level scientific work.
As the policy takes effect, universities and research organizations are bracing for the consequences. Some, like MIT, have warned that the cuts could drastically reduce the amount of critical medical research they are able to undertake. Others are considering the possibility of legal action to block the change, with some academic leaders predicting that the cuts could ultimately delay medical breakthroughs and endanger public health.
The debate over the NIH’s funding policy is likely to continue as the administration moves forward with its strategy to reduce federal spending on what it deems “administrative overhead.” While supporters argue that it will lead to more efficient government spending, the impact on American scientific research and innovation remains a source of significant concern among academic and medical leaders.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.