‘This is life or death': Mass. scientists fear consequences of funding cuts by federal government
New changes in how the federal government plans to fund research are sending a chill through many local laboratories.
Many scientists are trying to figure out if they can continue their work with deep budget cuts.
'My group and I study the evolution of disease, in particular, the evolution of cancers,' said John Quackenbush, Ph.D., the chair of the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Our goal is to identify the point in time, the place where those changes occur, with the idea that we can intervene and block cancer from progressing.'
While Quackenbush is usually thinking about curing cancer, he's now trying to think of a way to keep his research alive after a sudden announcement by the National Institutes of Health.
The federal government's leading provider of scientific research funds said they were capping the money institutions could receive for 'indirect costs' at 15%.
'We're all scrambling to try to figure out how we would make this work. Where we would find the additional money. We can't just set up a GoFundMe page.'
Indirect costs cover things like rent, utilities, support staff and grant management.
Quackenbush said the federal government already has stringent oversight.
'The process of determining the indirect cost rate is a rigorous one. Every few years representatives from the government visit the institution. They do a thorough audit.'
'My hunch is that we would be better of with less, and not any government funding, but it's a controversial question. There's not a trivial right or wrong
answer to that,' said Jeffrey Miron, vice president for research at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that promotes less government.
But that doesn't mean he thinks the Trump Administration's approach is good.
'Because they're not cutting the underlying funding. They're disrupting. They're creating a lot of confusion and anxiety and messiness of the activities, many of which are totally productive, and not having the conversation of, should we be funding this activity in the first place.'
Supporters of Alzheimer's research believe they'd pass any litmus test like that. They've seen big steps forward for the roughly seven million Americans who currently have the disease.
'The scientific progress has been extraordinary,' said Jim Wessler, CEO of the MA/NH chapter of the Alzheimer's Association. 'I've been at this for 27 years and I would say the last five years have just been remarkable.'
That's thanks to better diagnostic tools and the first drugs that can slow the progression of Alzheimer's Disease.
Today, Wessler is worried, particularly for patients currently in clinical trials.
'With therapeutics that are now in phase 2, some even phase 3 clinical trials, and the idea that those would just be frozen for families that are looking for anything that will help their loved ones is extraordinarily concerning.'
Another concern is the regional economy.
The NIH distributed about $3.5 billion to 219 Massachusetts organizations in fiscal 2024.
That's the highest amount per capita in the country.
Every dollar invested in research here creates $2-$3 in economic activity.
'There's no doubt that the uncertainty about these federal NIH grants trickles down to every level of our economy,' said Greg Reibman, the president and CEO of the Charles River Regional Chamber.
'It will impact who's able to go out to eat at a restaurant, who is able to hire a babysitter, who's able to purchase their next car.'
Some of the largest recipients of NIH grants in Massachusetts include Mass General, Brigham and Women's, Boston Children's, and the UMass Medical School in Worcester.
Like many of the cost cutting measures initiated by President Trump and Elon Musk, this one is now being challenged in the courts.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
How the Supreme Court kickstarted the redistricting arms race
Republicans' plan to redraw Texas's congressional district map years early launched a nationwide battle, with Democrats promising to retaliate with new partisan maps of their own. The big picture: The war to win the congressional maps is a result of a 2019 Supreme Court decision eliminating federal guardrails against partisan gerrymandering. President Trump has urged Texas Republicans to draw a new map more favorable to the GOP before the 2026 midterms. Democrats in New York and California have vowed to retaliate in kind. Context: The Supreme Court ignited the new wave of gerrymandering with a 2019 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts that held that partisan gerrymandering claims "present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties," Roberts wrote. Roberts added that "the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' ... does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary." What they're saying: Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck said that the Supreme Court's decision "left it as open-season for whatever the legislature can get away with" in states where lawmakers control the maps. The other side: Justice Elena Kagan in her 2019 dissent warned that "[o]f all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." She added, "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government." Zoom out: In 2024, the Supreme Court made it even more difficult to challenge congressional maps when it upheld a South Carolina district map that a lower court found was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rejected the lower court's conclusion. He wrote that "inferring bad faith based on the racial effects of a political gerrymander in a jurisdiction in which race and partisan preference are very closely correlated" could allow future litigants to sidestep the 2019 decision that partisan gerrymandering claims are out of the federal courts' reach. Friction point: Kagan, who again authored the dissent, said the decision sent a message to state legislators and mapmakers, who may use race "as a proxy to achieve partisan ends" or "straight-up suppress" minority voters' electoral influence: "Go right ahead, this Court says to States today." State of play: Texas could be just the tip of the iceberg, as the redistricting push sparks a chain reaction beforethe 2026 midterms. As Axios' Alex Isenstadt and Megan Stringer report, redistricting for partisan advantage is nothing new — but the mid-decade scramble comes well ahead of the 2030 census, after which redistricting normally takes place. Kagan in her 2019 dissent, said gerrymandering "helps create the polarized political system so many Americans loathe." She continued, "Is it conceivable that someday voters will be able to break out of that prefabricated box? Sure. But everything possible has been done to make that hard. To create a world in which power does not flow from the people because they do not choose their governors."
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Hong Kong cancels passports and bans financial support for 16 overseas activists
HONG KONG — Hong Kong authorities on Monday strengthened a crackdown on 16 overseas-based activists who were previously targeted by bounties on suspicion of endangering national security, implementing measures that include banning financial support to them and canceling passports for most of them. The activists were among 19 people who were targeted with arrest warrants in July for alleged roles in Hong Kong Parliament, a group the police called a subversive organization abroad. The organization is not the city's official legislature and its influence is limited. Three of the original 19 activists were already targeted by similar measures last year. Secretary for Security Chris Tang banned providing funds or economic resources to the 16 activists, including Victor Ho, Keung Ka-wai, Australian academic Chongyi Feng and U.S. citizen Gong Sasha, the Hong Kong government said in a statement. Travel documents were canceled for 12 of the 16 who hold Hong Kong passports. The government also prohibited properties from being leased to the people on the list or forming joint ventures with them. Anyone violating the orders risks a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The 16 activists are hiding in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Germany, Australia, Thailand and Taiwan, among other regions, the government said, accusing them of continuing to engage in activities endangering national security. The notice also accused them of intending to incite hatred against Beijing and Hong Kong through smear and slander. 'We therefore have taken such measures to make a significant impact,' the statement said. Beijing imposed a national security law on the territory in 2020 that has effectively wiped out most public dissent following huge anti-government protests in 2019. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. The measures announced Monday were issued under the powers granted by Hong Kong's homegrown national security law enacted last year. The arrest warrants issued in July have drawn criticism from foreign governments, including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Police offered rewards of 200,000 Hong Kong dollars ($25,480) to 1 million Hong Kong dollars ($127,400) for information leading to their arrests. In a July statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the moves. 'The extraterritorial targeting of Hong Kongers who are exercising their fundamental freedoms is a form of transnational repression,' he said. 'We will not tolerate the Hong Kong government's attempts to apply its national security laws to silence or intimidate Americans or anyone on U.S. soil.' The Hong Kong office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded by opposing criticism from foreign politicians, insisting the actions were legitimate. The governements in Beijing and Hong Kong said the security laws were necessary for the city's stability. Leung writes for the Associated Press.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
A key habit boosts colorectal cancer survival rates — as docs see ‘tremendous increase' in young people with the disease
Don't stall — your butt is on the line. Nearly 53,000 Americans are expected to die of colorectal cancer this year, making it one of the deadliest cancers in the US. Though the death rate has been declining in older adults, it has been steadily rising among people younger than 55 since the 1990s. Because of this worrisome trend, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered its recommendation for starting colorectal cancer screening from age 50 to 45 in 2021. The American Cancer Society (ACS) made the same suggestion in 2018 for people at average risk for the disease. 4 Though the colorectal cancer death rate has been declining in older adults, it has been steadily rising among people younger than 55 since the 1990s. ryanking999 – New research out Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows the guidance is working. Colorectal cancer screening among Americans aged 45 to 49 rose by 62% from 2019 to 2023. 'It's not only thrilling to see the increase in colorectal cancer screening among younger adults, but also how it likely ties into rises in earlier stage diagnosis as noted in the other ACS-led paper,' said lead study author Jessica Star, an ACS associate scientist for cancer risk factors and screening surveillance research. The increase in screenings appears to have paved the way for an uptick in diagnoses of early-stage colorectal cancer among 45- to 49-year-olds. Early stage typically means the disease hasn't spread beyond the colon or rectum. Early-stage diagnoses in 45- to 49-year-olds rose from 11.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2021 to 17.5 cases per 100,000 people in 2022, according to a study also published Monday in JAMA. 4 Because of this concerning trend, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered its recommendation for starting colorectal cancer screening from age 50 to 45 in 2021. A colonoscopy, a popular screening method, is shown here. ShvedKristina – Early detection can significantly improve survival rates and treatment outcomes. 'We still have a long way to go,' Star said. 'Screening for colorectal cancer in ages 45-49 remains suboptimal and has not increased equitably by both educational attainment and insurance status.' Colonoscopies, when a doctor uses a long, thin, flexible tube to examine the colon for abnormalities, spiked 43% and stool-based testing jumped more than 5-fold from 2019 to 2023 in the 45 to 49 group. Every racial and ethnic group underwent more screenings, as people without a high school diploma and uninsured people sat on the sidelines. ACS warns that screening is more important than ever. Advanced-stage colorectal cancer has risen 1.7% to 2.9% annually since 2004 among adults younger than 45 and even more sharply in the past decade in people 45 to 54. 4 Scientists aren't exactly sure why colorectal cancer patients are getting younger. Several factors could be to blame. Nadzeya – 'I've been in practice for 25 years, and I can tell you over the last 10 years and particularly over the last five years, we have seen a tremendous increase in cancer in young patients,' Dr. David Rivadeneira — director of the Northwell Health Cancer Institute at Huntington Hospital and a colorectal cancer specialist, who was not involved in the new research — told The Post. 'We never used to see this,' he added. 'This used to be a diagnosis you give to someone in their mid-50s, 60s, 70s or 80s.' Scientists aren't exactly sure why colorectal cancer patients are getting younger. They have pointed the finger at the prevalence of obesity, sedentary lifestyles, the Western diet, excess sugar consumption and environmental factors such as pollutants in the air, soil and water. Rivadeneira noted that he now recommends a colonoscopy for people with any concerning symptoms, no matter their age. Common colorectal cancer symptoms include changes in bathroom habits, blood in stool, stomach pain or cramping, unexplained weight loss and fatigue. Surgery is the primary treatment for most colon cancers, with survival rates influenced by the stage of the disease. 4 Common colorectal cancer symptoms include changes in bathroom habits, blood in stool, stomach pain or cramping, unexplained weight loss and fatigue. ryanking999 – Stage 1 colon cancer is curable 90% of the time with just surgery and no other treatment, Rivadeneira said. Stage 2 — when the tumor is larger and has grown through the bowel wall but has not spread to nearby lymph nodes — has a survival rate of 80% to 85%. 'When you go to Stage 3, now it's spread to the lymph nodes, it drops down to the 60% mark,' Rivadeneira said. 'So the sooner the tumors are detected, the higher the cure rate and again, no need for chemotherapy or any additional treatment besides the surgery.'
