The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking to impose limits on specific grants that fund scientific research, amounting to billions of dollars in total support.
Key Developments:
- Under the directive of the Trump administration, the NIH has proposed immediate reductions in funding for researchers across the country. These cuts would target “indirect” research costs, which include essential expenses such as laboratory equipment, computers, and administrative support.
- A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction, preventing the funding cuts from taking immediate effect.
- Scientists warn that reducing these grants could lead to lab closures and disrupt critical research projects, potentially delaying advancements in life-saving treatments.
Lifesaving Studies at Risk
A recent proposal by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to reduce funding for “indirect” research costs—including lab equipment, IT infrastructure, and administrative support—has sparked widespread concern among scientists. Researchers warn that these cuts could significantly hinder critical studies, delay medical breakthroughs, and even force laboratories to shut down.
“These funds keep the lights on—literally and figuratively,” says Harlan Krumholz, MD, director of the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Yale University School of Medicine. “They cover essential expenses like lab space, regulatory compliance, and infrastructure. Without them, research would grind to a halt.”
Krumholz compares the situation to providing funding for vehicles and drivers but not for roads. “It’s not excess—it’s essential,” he emphasizes.
How the NIH Can Fund Critical Research
In the 2023 fiscal year, the NIH allocated over $35 billion across nearly 50,000 grants, benefiting more than 300,000 researchers at over 2,500 universities. Historically, these grants set aside around 27 to 28 percent for indirect costs, with some exceeding 60 percent.
Under the new proposal, indirect cost coverage would be capped at 15 percent, aligning with private organizations like the Gates Foundation (10%), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (12%), and Chan Zuckerberg Foundation (15%).
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH stated. “Ensuring that maximum funds go towards direct scientific research rather than administrative overhead is vital.”
Legal Challenge: A Temporary Halt
A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the NIH’s funding cuts, issuing a nationwide restraining order. However, uncertainty about future funding is already affecting researchers.
“Right now, it’s causing distraction and despair,” says Theodore Iwashyna, MD, PhD, a professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “Some of my staff and younger trainees are wondering if they should start looking for other jobs.”
Iwashyna explains that the costs NIH is attempting to cut actually contribute to long-term savings. “Computers, office space, lab facilities—these are shared resources. If every researcher had to fund these individually, it would be far more expensive.”
Iwashyna’s own research, which focuses on improving recovery from pneumonia, could be at risk. Pneumonia is responsible for 1.4 million emergency room visits and 41,000 deaths annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“If these cuts happen, it will be devastating,” he warns. “Our children and grandchildren will be sicker and die sooner because lifesaving discoveries won’t be made.”
Indirect Costs Enable Efficiency in Research
Researchers argue that indirect costs allow for the efficient use of grant funds. Nora Becker, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan, highlights the importance of shared computing resources in her work on women’s health and chronic disease management.
“My research relies on massive datasets that can’t be analyzed on a regular computer,” Becker explains. “Instead of every researcher buying their own high-performance system, universities use indirect funds to maintain a shared server. This allows us to maximize efficiency and expand research capabilities.”
The Legacy of NIH Funding
NIH funding has played a pivotal role in numerous medical breakthroughs. From HIV and cancer treatments to diabetes and obesity management, NIH-backed research has transformed medicine. “Thirty years ago, HIV was the leading cause of death among young men in the U.S.,” Becker points out. “Now it’s a manageable chronic disease with near-normal life expectancy.”
She also notes that cancers once considered fatal now have high survival rates, and groundbreaking medications like Wegovy and Ozempic—which didn’t exist a decade ago—are now frontline treatments for diabetes and obesity.
The Future of U.S. Medical Innovation
Becker stresses that NIH funding is what has made the United States a global leader in scientific and medical innovation. Cutting indirect cost funding would not just slow progress—it could halt research altogether.
“If these cuts go through, research will stop, discoveries will be lost, and more people will die,” she cautions.
As legal battles continue, the scientific community remains united in its stance: NIH’s indirect cost funding is not just an administrative expense—it is the backbone of American medical research. Without it, the future of scientific discovery and public health is at risk.