I’ve tried hard to keep politics out of this magazine. After all, it’s a medical magazine, not a
political forum. However, political interests keep blasting their way into the medical field, left
and right—no pun intended—to the point that it’s sometimes impossible to discuss changes
in the medical field without discussing politics. On one such matter—federal cuts to medical
research—I’m going to step into the fray.
You’ve likely heard that the current presidential administration is making major cuts to
scientific funding. According to a recent article from the Journal of the American Medical
Association, the Trump administration “has proposed to Congress a 43% cut to next year’s
NIH budget, equivalent to $20 billion per year.” Few institutions have been as vital to American
innovation and public health as the NIH, a backbone of medical breakthroughs, but the
current administration’s cuts to federal research funding have cast a long shadow over this
critical engine of innovation.
According to The New York Times, “In his first months in office, President Trump has slashed
funding for medical research, threatening a longstanding alliance between the federal government
and universities that helped make the United States the world leader in medical
science. …In all, the [NIH], the world’s premier public funder of medical research, has ended
1,389 awards and delayed sending funding to more than 1,000 additional projects. … From
the day Mr. Trump was inaugurated through April, the agency awarded $1.6 billion less
compared with the same period last year, a reduction of one-fifth.”
These cuts have created an atmosphere of uncertainty, turmoil and risk for researchers
who rely on federal funding. Worse yet, the cuts may deprive the nation of groundbreaking
discoveries. NIH funding reductions will slow progress on some of the most pressing health
challenges facing our nation: cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, genetic disorders, infectious diseases,
and more. Delays in funding can mean postponed clinical trials, hindered development
of new therapies, and the shelving of innovative ideas before they even reach the testing
phase. When scientific advances are stalled, so too are improvements in diagnosis, treatment
and prevention that could save lives and reduce healthcare costs.
A reduction in NIH grants could also weaken the United States’ leadership role as countries
around the world continue to invest heavily in their own scientific infrastructures. American
scientists may seek research opportunities elsewhere, taking vital talent and innovation
with them. The economic impact is also troubling, since healthcare innovation fueled by
NIH-supported research often translates into new jobs and economic growth. Underfunding
can slow the commercialization of new treatments and diminish the development of startups.
Investment in the NIH is essential—not just for scientists and clinicians, but the very health of
our society. It should be our collective responsibility to ensure that scientific research remains
a cornerstone of national policy, regardless of political views. If not, crucial consequences will
continue to reverberate across the scientific community and beyond. I will now, happily and
with great relief, step back out of the fray.
