By Christos Richards
As we approached the BIO International Convention, it was amid a week of national tragedy, global unrest, and ongoing turmoil. Members of an industry that remains under fire stood alongside public servants and citizens grappling with threats to the First Amendment rights.
Like most of my colleagues and peer, time is a precious commodity, so it was a luxury to recently find myself on an international flight and able to digest an investigative report I thought might offer interest. Given its length, and the limited minutes in the day each of you have as well, I thought I would summarize. Those interested in the full report will find the link at the end.
This summary draws from an article based on months of original reporting by journalists Annie Waldman, Asia Fields, and Ashley Clarke. Their work included extensive interviews with over 150 researchers whose NIH grants were terminated, providing insight into the real-world impact. In addition, the report references internal NIH documents, termination letters, and communications from the Department of Health and Human Services.
THE LOSS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATION CUTS:
Over the past several months, the NIH has enacted sweeping cuts to research funding, eliminating thousands of grants, stalling clinical trials, and throttling projects ranging from pandemic preparedness to Alzheimer’s and HIV prevention. Although the current administration has framed these actions as part of a broader effort to realign NIH’s budget toward programs that “enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness,” internal records and interviews paint a far more disruptive and politically driven picture.
The Scale and Scope of the Cuts are Significant
- Grant terminations: More than 600 grants have been abruptly cancelled, including those focused on transgender health, global pandemics, dementia, and HIV transmission. Many of these were active or near completion, and that work is at risk of being lost and unrecoverable.
- LGBTQ+ and inequity research most hit: Over 300 grants specifically addressed LGBTQ+ health—around 40 targeting suicide prevention—and more than 550 examined health disparities.
- Billions in lost funding: Estimates include over $9.5 billion in cut grants and more than $2 billion in terminated contracts. This has impacted roughly 2,100 projects.
Ripple Effects on Science and Scientists
- Clinical trials abruptly halted: Investigations into tuberculosis drugs in Haiti and antiviral development for pandemic response were cut short, imperiling patient safety and wasting prior investments in these important studies.
- Postdocs and early career researchers at risk: Lab personnel report lost jobs, stalled careers, and grants under 30-day delays have already been shown to prompt early exits from science. Tragic is that this is especially among postdocs, many of whom may never return to the field.
- Brain drain fears: A rise in career exits and exits abroad has emerged and is escalating. Early-career scholars are especially disillusioned and considering relocating from the U.S. to Europe or Canada, with a desire to avoid placing their careers in the hands of an increasingly hostile U.S. research environment.
Institutional Backlash and Legal Battles
- Internal dissent (Bethesda Declaration): Nearly 300 NIH staff, 92 on the record and ~250 anonymously have signed the Bethesda Declaration. They condemn cuts as politically motivated, disruptive, and counterproductive, urging restoration of vital “life-saving” science.
- Legal pushback: Lawsuits from 22 state attorneys general, backed by institutions including the AAMC and AAU, halted a policy capping indirect costs at 15%, a major blow to universities dependent on overhead funding. Courts also intervened to stop discrimination-based grant cuts, but the risk is that this is only temporary.
Motivations and Political Context
- Our current administration in Washington, D.C., argues that NIH was funding studies lacking clear health outcomes, justifying grant removal . These actions coincide with broader federal cuts including those to the CDC, NSF, and climate-health research. These actions clearly align with an administration strategy emphasizing cost control, restructuring HHS agencies, and curbing funding tied to gender, LGBTQ+, and racial equity focus.
- Critics see ideological targeting behind the decisions. They have labeled them “shattered science” and evidence of a “culture of fear” at NIH, with damaging implications for U.S. science leadership that may take years to recover from.
Long-Term Consequences
- Scientific pipeline under threat: Terminating grants midstream wastes prior investment and hinders follow-through on clinical trials, potentially leaving patients untreated and data untapped.
- Economic and workforce damage: NIH funding previously generated substantial downstream jobs and economic activity. A disrupted grant ecosystem will undermine both biomedical innovation and all associated industries.
- Eroded public health preparedness: These funding cuts have eroded public health preparedness. Many affected projects focused on infectious diseases ranging from HIV research to pandemic-ready antivirals. Now more than ever, we should be investing in readiness and resilience, not treating science and medicine as partisan tools.
- Reputational decline: With top researchers leaving or losing faith, the U.S. risks losing its global edge. Recruiting hubs including Canada, Europe and select Asia Pac countries are actively welcoming displaced talent.
The investigation in this link reveals a dismantling of large swaths of NIH-funded health research, driven partly by politics and ideological objectives rather than any scientific need or rational.
The Scientific Research Lost Amid the Trump Administration’s NIH Cuts — ProPublica
With over $9 billion in cuts, halted clinical trials, mass staff unrest, and legal action, the consequences reach far beyond our labs, universities, and hospitals. They impair U.S. capacity for biomedical breakthroughs, degrade public health defense, deter future scientists, and will if not checked, erode global trust in American science.
Given the cascading effects and strong institutional opposition, the stakes we face are high, not just for researchers, but for public well‑being, national security, and the country’s scientific standing. I view this as a stark warning: Politicizing grant decisions will jeopardize more than budgets. It risks the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise.
I’d welcome thoughts on how industry leaders, policymakers, and funders can work together to protect critical science from the volatility of political cycles.