As NIH Cuts Loom, Research Organizations Need to Weigh Alternatives

Guest Commentary

The recent announcement of proposed funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sparked concern across the biomedical research community, and while the courts have halted this proposal for now, unease and uncertainty remain. The new administration’s budget plan specifically targets indirect research costs, which include essential expenses such as administrative support, facilities maintenance, and operational infrastructure. While some policymakers argue that these costs are unnecessary, researchers warn that such reductions could have severe consequences, particularly for cancer research and other critical (often life-and-death) medical advancements.

Scientists have also raised concerns that funding cuts could disrupt research already in progress, which could negatively impact both drug and diagnostic developers and the patients counting on those innovations. Potential delays in clinical trials may result in extended timelines for new drug approvals, and a sudden reduction in financial support could also lead to the loss of critical data if research teams are forced to disband before completing studies. In extreme cases, entire research programs may be shut down, wasting years of time and cost investment.

And the NIH is not the only organization facing potential upheaval. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also been under scrutiny and is currently reviewing grants for compliance with executive orders on diversity and flagging those that don’t comply, all while facing proposed staffing cuts of 25% to 50% in the coming months. The FDA also recently removed content about diversity and inclusion in clinical trials for cancer drugs.

With all these changes coming at a rapid-fire pace and the recent confirmation of RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary, it’s time for researchers to take stock and form contingency plans.

How indirect costs support scientific progress

The indirect costs the new administration is focusing on are often overlooked, but they play a pivotal role in scientific research. These funds support the staff who manage grant applications, ensure compliance with federal regulations, and oversee ethical standards in research. They also fund infrastructure essentials including laboratory upkeep, security, and utilities, all of which are key to ensuring research facilities function effectively. Without these elements, the pace of scientific discovery could slow dramatically—or grind to a halt.

Research institutions should prepare now for a potential loss of funding and other changes that may be coming down the pike. It may seem excessive for major academic institutions to receive over 60% allocation of funds for indirect costs (mainly due to their prestige and location—Harvard’s on-campus research indirect costs were negotiated at 69% and Yale’s at 67.5%), but even smaller allocations to other institutions can range from 25–30%.

Cutting these allocations could have a major negative impact on these smaller institutions’ ability to conduct research away from major, coastal institutions, as well as larger institutions’ ability to support the infrastructure needed to continue their broader research initiatives. Although the cuts appear to be aimed at institutional costs, it is also unclear if these cuts would lead to any improvement in direct allocation costs.

Strategies to mitigate funding reductions

To counteract the impact of reduced NIH funding, researchers and institutions may need to pursue alternative funding sources. Private philanthropy, industry partnerships, and state funding initiatives could help sustain vital projects. Additionally, institutions might adopt cost-saving measures such as sharing resources across universities, streamlining administrative processes, and leveraging advancements in artificial intelligence to optimize research workflows. Here are some other steps that research organizations should consider:

● Work with your leadership team. Your team needs to fully understand which sources of funding are at risk. That means identifying specific grants and funding streams that could be lost and assessing their impact. For example, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants could be an avenue for commercially oriented research organizations to pursue. Private businesses receiving SBIR grants have considerably lower overhead restrictions compared to universities.

● Explore philanthropic funding opportunities. Some universities have been more proactive than others in this regard, but philanthropic events and community fundraisers can be highly effective, especially in areas like cancer research, where so many people are personally affected. When donors see that their contributions directly support independent research programs, they can be incredibly generous.

● Explore less expensive operating costs. Now is a good time to look for ways to operate more efficiently, whether by implementing cost-saving strategies, adopting free or low-cost project management tools, leveraging AI, or restructuring resources.

● Partner with the private sector. The private sector often has substantial funding and a vested interest in research. For example, commercial institutions frequently seek access to biological samples for studies. Samples are a crucial asset that research institutions can leverage. Additionally, pharma companies are eager to analyze real-world patient data from university medical centers to identify candidates for new treatments. These kinds of collaborations can provide alternative funding, data-sharing opportunities, and administrative support that indirectly sustains research. By forging strong industry partnerships, academic researchers can tap into private sector resources while maintaining their research efforts.

Potential long-term public health implications

If biomedical research slows due to funding constraints, the public health impact could be dire. A decline in medical advancements could lead to increased disease prevalence and higher mortality rates. Delays in vaccine development, cancer therapies, and rare disease research could compromise patient outcomes. Furthermore, reduced funding for public health research may weaken the nation’s preparedness for future pandemics and emerging health threats.

Additionally, a significant portion of medical research focuses on improving health equity and addressing diversity challenges, both within the United States and globally. Historically, commercially available medicines have undergone clinical trial processes that have inherent gender- and race-related biases. If research efforts to combat these biases are reduced, minority populations will suffer. We’ve seen some progress in DEI initiatives, population genomics, and understanding the impact of different socioeconomic backgrounds on health; rolling back these advancements now is detrimental to public and individual health outcomes.

Overall, the research community is justifiably concerned that the proposed NIH funding cuts could have far-reaching effects on medical innovation, public health, and patient outcomes. While policymakers on Capitol Hill debate the necessity of indirect research costs, the scientific community—the researchers in the trenches working to bring new, life-saving therapies to patients—understand that these expenses are integral to sustaining progress in healthcare.

Funding for medical research and innovation is critical—not a “nice to have.” Whether via NIH or through alternate sustainable funding sources, we must continue the research that ensures new medical innovations reach the patients who are counting on them. Invariably, basic research needs a longer time investment, and benefits could take decades to materialize. Focusing on short-term goals carries a risk of long-term failures and much greater costs to society as a whole.

Inga Rose is CEO, and Zoran Gatalica, MD, is medical director, of Reference Medicine, an oncology specimen procurement partner that provides laboratories, startups, academic researchers, and others with the specimens needed to fuel oncology diagnostic innovation.

Reference:
https://www.genengnews.com/industry-news/as-nih-cuts-loom-research-organizations-need-to-weigh-alternatives/

PackGene Biotech is a world-leading CRO and CDMO, excelling in AAV vectors, mRNA, plasmid DNA, and lentiviral vector solutions. Our comprehensive offerings span from vector design and construction to AAV, lentivirus, and mRNA services. With a sharp focus on early-stage drug discovery, preclinical development, and cell and gene therapy trials, we deliver cost-effective, dependable, and scalable production solutions. Leveraging our groundbreaking π-alpha 293 AAV high-yield platform, we amplify AAV production by up to 10-fold, yielding up to 1e+17vg per batch to meet diverse commercial and clinical project needs. Moreover, our tailored mRNA and LNP products and services cater to every stage of drug and vaccine development, from research to GMP production, providing a seamless, end-to-end solution.

Related News

Related Services