As part of President Donald Trump’s plan to cut back on government spending, he has announced that his administration will limit university research funding from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Funding enables universities to engage in biomedical research that creates cures for diseases and progresses science beneficial for the environment and society.
The proposed change caps how much of a grant can fund indirect costs, such as personnel or facilities, to 15% — a stark drop from the percentage universities nationwide have used for decades. Jessica Bernard, professor and researcher of cognition and neuroscience, said Texas A&M uses approximately 52.5% of NIH grants for indirect costs.
“This is a huge cut,” Bernard said. “These costs help cover things like electricity, building repair … they also help, in part, to support many of our core research facilities. We cannot do research without this support.”
The cap threatens to hinder research projects across campus, including Bernard’s latest work focused on tackling age-related diseases.
“Our main goal is to improve quality of life and function for older adults,” Bernard said. “This is one of the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. population. In our newest work, we are also starting to look at mild cognitive impairment which is seen in many individuals before they go on to develop Alzheimer’s Disease. We are using stimulation to test a new intervention target that may help cognitive and motor function.”
Without the same amount of financial support from NIH, this cognitive project will slow down, she said. Director of the Texas A&M Drug Discovery Center Wenshe Liu, Ph.D., said he uses NIH funding for research that focuses on furthering drugs that fight against cancer and infectious diseases.
“The general public needs to know that biomedical research has significantly lowered our health expenses by advancing my clinically approved drugs,” Liu said. “Compared to health expenses without these new drugs, what we have spent on NIH to support research is quite minimal. This is a very cost-effective business.”
These drugs are therapeutic candidates for acute myeloid leukemia and Covid-19. Any restrictions regarding funding will severely limit progress for this pursuit of medicine.
While things are not yet clear, Associate Dean for Research Emily Pentzer speculates that graduate students in Ph.D. programs will be the first to be cut.
“Which I think is not good because I think our graduate students play critical roles in educating undergraduates,” Pentzer said.
Despite the circumstances, Pentzer said she has hope for A&M’s Division of Research.
“I have a lot of excitement and hope that we can greet a better future,” Pentzer said. “Because whatever problems there were, why don’t we figure out what we actually want to design, and specifically how we want to create new knowledge that impacts all of our lives?”
On Feb. 21, a federal judge blocked the cuts proposed by Trump’s administration for a second time due to the potential hindrance to medical advancement. However, the administration continues to fight back, claiming that the issue of budgeting lies within the executive branch’s domain.
As the cuts are deliberated in court, Pentzer said the research department in the College of Arts and Sciences plans to continue as normal. But some Aggie researchers, such as Bernard, stand firm in their belief that NIH funding is not something to be tampered with.
“How many of us have had a loved one or friend with cancer?” Bernard said. “Alzheimer’s Disease? Known someone who has suffered a stroke? Or known someone with heart disease? I think you would be hard-pressed to find a person who has not had their life impacted either directly, or indirectly via a loved one, by the NIH.”
