Leader in Neurosurgery on Future of NIH Funding

What are the potential consequences of limiting indirect cost rates for research institutions?

Limiting indirect cost rates would have far-reaching consequences. First, it would directly harm the infrastructure that supports scientific research. Universities rely on federal funding to cover the costs of essential services — everything from laboratory maintenance to regulatory compliance. If this funding is reduced, institutions would be forced to cut back on these services, which could disrupt ongoing research projects and slow down the pace of innovation.

Second, this policy change would drive top scientific talent away from U.S. institutions. Researchers may seek better-funded opportunities in the private sector or abroad, particularly in countries that are increasingly investing heavily in research. This shift could weaken the U.S.’ position as a global leader in medical innovation and slow life-saving medical advancements.

Can you provide examples of how this could affect specific fields of medicine?

The field of cancer research is a great example. A significant portion of the groundbreaking work in cancer immunotherapy, which harnesses the immune system to fight cancer, is supported by NIH funding. These treatments are revolutionizing cancer care and providing new hope for patients. If institutions can’t sustain their research infrastructure due to funding cuts, it could stall progress in developing new therapies and treatments.

Another critical area affected is neuroscience. Neurological diseases are among the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S. The NIH-funded BRAIN Initiative has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the brain and developing treatments for conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and traumatic brain injuries. If research institutions are forced to scale back their efforts due to financial strain, the potential for new breakthroughs in neuroscience would be severely diminished.

What impact could this have on U.S. competitiveness?

The U.S. has historically been the global leader in medical research, but by reducing funding necessary to maintain our research infrastructure, we risk losing that edge. Top researchers may choose to work in countries with better-funded research ecosystems, eroding our scientific leadership and putting us at a disadvantage in the global competition for medical and technological innovation.

What role does NIH funding play in the larger U.S. research ecosystem?

NIH funding serves as the backbone of the U.S. medical research enterprise, supporting everything from fundamental discoveries to clinical trials. While private foundations and industry partnerships play important roles in advancing medical research, the federal government provides the most stable and reliable funding for long-term, high-risk, high-reward scientific endeavors.

Without sufficient NIH funding, smaller institutions and community-based research centers would be hit hardest, as they rely more heavily on federal dollars and have fewer alternative sources of funding. Larger institutions may be able to absorb some of the shortfall, but even they will face challenges. The U.S. medical research community depends on a balanced mix of public and private investment and cutting one of those sources would destabilize the whole system.

What steps can the NIH or the U.S. government take to address these concerns and ensure the continued success of health sciences research?

The most immediate step is for the NIH to reconsider the 15% cap on indirect cost recovery and work with the research community to find a more sustainable solution. Research institutions need adequate funding to support the infrastructure that makes groundbreaking scientific work possible.

Additionally, there must be a broader conversation about the long-term sustainability of U.S. medical science research. We need policies that balance the need for efficiency with the necessity of investing in the infrastructure that supports innovation. This is a critical moment for the future of American science, and urgent action is needed to preserve our leadership in medical research and ensure that we continue to make life-saving advancements.

What message would you like to leave with lawmakers about the importance of funding for biomedical research?

Biomedical research is not just about scientific discovery; it’s about saving lives and improving patient outcomes. The U.S. has been the global leader in medical research because we have the infrastructure, talent, and resources to support leading-edge innovation. If we dismantle that infrastructure, we risk losing our leadership in human health science, jeopardizing the future of medicine, and leaving patients without the hope of new treatments and cures. It’s critical that we protect and sustain NIH funding, ensuring that we continue to lead the way in life-saving research.