Medical schools, colleges denounce NIH cutting billions

The National Institutes of Health is cutting billions of dollars in funding, and academic institutions said the reductions are going to hurt medical research and cost jobs.

The National Institutes of Health announced cuts of billions of dollars in research funding. Medical schools and colleges say the cuts will hurt research, slow progress on the search for cures and lead to job cuts.

Researchers expressed a mix of outrage and alarm after the NIH announced the cuts without warning Friday night. The NIH is the government’s largest source of federal funds for medical research.

In announcing its decision, the NIH says it is capping “indirect” costs as the agency is aiming to ensure money goes toward research rather than overhead costs. The NIH said online that the cuts would save $4 billion annually.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead,” the NIH.

The NIH says it is lowering the rate of indirect costs to 15%, and the agency says some institutions are charging the government rates surpassing 60%. The agency says the typical rate for indirect costs was 27% to 28%. Supporters of the NIH’s policy say that large universities with endowments of billions of dollars can shoulder the lower administrative costs.

A federal judge moved Monday to temporarily block the NIH cuts from taking effect, after 22 states filed a legal challenge, ABC News reported. A hearing is slated to take place later this month.

The Association of American Medical Colleges said the move hurts patients as well as research institutions. The AAMC said in a statement Saturday that the cuts will “deprive patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics, and preventive interventions.”

The AAMC said indirect costs cover legitimate expenses including lab operations, data processing, security and other costs.

“Make no mistake. This announcement will mean less research. Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out. Researchers and staff will lose their jobs. As a result, Americans will have to wait longer for cures and our country will cede scientific breakthroughs to foreign competitors. These are real consequences – slower scientific progress, longer waits for cures, fewer jobs,” the AAMC said in a statement.

Impact on hospitals and colleges

Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, denounced the NIH cuts.

“This approach to suddenly cutting @NIH grant indirect costs will cause chaos and harm biomedical research and researchers in hospitals, schools and institutes nationwide. A sane government would never do this,” Flier wrote on X.

In its statement, the NIH says that it distributed $35 billion in funds for research in the 2023 fiscal year, with $9 billion allocated to overhead costs.

Elon Musk, who has been tasked by President Donald Trump with looking at ways to cut spending throughout the government, hailed the NIH’s move. Musk has also worried lawmakers by examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In a post on X, the social media platform he owns, Musk wrote, “Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’? What a ripoff!”

Critics of the NIH’s move point out that many universities doing important medical research don’t enjoy the luxury of large endowments.

Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities, implored the Trump administration to rethink its policy.

“NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” Becker said in a statement. “Let there be no mistake: this is a direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research. We urge the administration to reconsider this self-defeating action.”

“At public universities across the country, NIH-funded researchers are working tirelessly toward breakthroughs in treating debilitating diseases and discovering cures to deadly illnesses,” Becker said. “Cuts to reimbursement of these costs are cuts to medical research and represent the federal government stepping back from commitments it has made to world-leading researchers. This action will slow advances for millions of patients who desperately need critical breakthroughs and imperil the U.S.’s position as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”

Barbara R. Snyder, president of the Association of American Universities, said the administrative costs are a necessary component of research. The group represents large research institutions.

“Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs – also referred to as “indirect costs” – are real and necessary costs of conducting the groundbreaking research that has led to countless breakthroughs in the past decades,” Snyder said in a statement. “A cut to F&A reimbursements for NIH grants is quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families.”

Economic ramifications

Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and health economist, wrote on X that the NIH cuts will have a bigger impact on schools that don’t have big endowments. He argued that it would mean fewer research opportunities and higher tuition for students.

“Colleges and universities won’t be able to support students, tuition will increase, especially graduate students & researchers who find cures/preventions for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and more,” he wrote on X. “This will not only raise tuition and hurt pipeline of future scientists/doctors, but COMPLETELY DECIMATE MEDICAL & PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH.”

For decades, the NIH has generally enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress, with Republicans and Democrats coming together to boost spending on medical research. Republicans have grown more critical of the NIH in recent years. But critics of the NIH cuts argue they will hurt colleges and economies across the country.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, argued on X that the NIH policy “amounts to an indiscriminate funding cut for research centers of all sizes, NOT just Ivies. It will mean shuttering labs across the country, layoffs in red & blue states, & derailing lifesaving research on everything from cancer to opioid addiction.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, assailed the NIH’s cuts.

“Instead of cutting costs for working families, Donald Trump is slashing the federal investments that fund their lifesaving care, fuel their local economy, and lower their health care costs,” Warren wrote on X. “It’s cruel, short-sighted, and will cost jobs and devastate millions of families.”