The Trump administration announced their plans to cut billions in federal funding for biomedical research in universities and hospitals last week.
On Friday, Feb. 7, the National Institutes of Health stated an intent to slash a significant margin of grants for overhead research. These indirect costs include building and equipment maintenance and utilities. Currently, NIH grants provide $27 billion in direct research and an additional $9 billion in facilities and administration costs; the latter would be cut nearly in half by the new directive, losing approximately $4 billion in funding.
In response to a lawsuit against the Trump administration filed by university associations, Federal Judge Angel Kelley ordered a temporary restraining order on the plan, barring it from taking effect until further notice. Quotes from the suit claimed that the “flagrantly unlawful action” by U.S. health officials “will devastate medical research at America’s universities,” as per the New York Times.
It remains to be seen how these cuts could impact the University of Idaho’s WWAMI and other research programs. The Argonaut contacted staff members at UI’s Office of Research as well as WWAMI concerning how these budget cuts would impact biomedical research here on campus, but received no response. However, the New York Times estimates that “virtually all universities and hospitals would see fewer funds on…projects in the future.”
For additional understanding into the inner workings of the plan, Dr. Harlan Krumholz of Yale University likened the overhead costs to that of a concert to MSN. “Imagine you’re funding a concert. Direct costs would be like paying for the musicians and their instruments. Indirect costs would be the venue, the sound system, the people who manage the event — all essential, but often invisible to the audience.”
While this decision was praised by Elon Musk, the head of the recently established Department of Government Efficiency, the directive has been questioned by voices across both political and professional spectrums.
One of Stanford University’s lead radiation oncologists, Anusha Kalabasi, said to the BBC that these overhead grants “keep the lights on and ventilation flowing in our labs, keep us safe from biohazards, maintain the infrastructure for massive amounts of data and employ the staff that help researchers focus on science. This would be a devastating hit even for institutions with large endowments.”
The cuts have also been challenged by some Republicans in Congress, coming from senators who are concerned about the impact that may be felt by research institutions in their home states. Senators Katie Britt of Alabama and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana both called the wisdom of the directive into question, though some of the most notable pushback came from Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins. In a statement Monday, she opposed “the poorly conceived directive,” citing her discussions with Maine research institutions who stated cuts would be “devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs.”
Despite the pushback from political, medical and legal entities, the White House maintains that these cuts are not only beneficial but essential.
The News Tribune quoted an email sent by White House spokesman Kush Desai, “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.”
He continued, “The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans.”
Julia Kolman can be reached at arg-news@uidaho.edu.