logo
What happens to health research when ‘women' is a banned word?

What happens to health research when ‘women' is a banned word?

Yahoo27-03-2025
Daniella Fodera got an unusually early morning call from her research adviser this month: The doctoral student's fellowship at Columbia University had been suddenly terminated.
Fodera sobbed on phone calls with her parents. Between the fellowship application and scientific review process, she had spent a year of her life securing the funding, which helped pay for her study of the biomechanics of uterine fibroids — tissue growths that can cause severe pain, bleeding and even infertility. Uterine fibroids, an underresearched condition, impact up to 77 percent of women as they age.
'I'm afraid of what it means for women's health,' Fodera said. 'I'm just one puzzle piece in the larger scheme of what is happening. So me alone, canceling my funding will have a small impact — but canceling the funding of many will have a much larger impact. It will stall research that has been stalled for decades already. For me, that's sad and an injustice.'
Fodera's work was a casualty of new federal funding cuts at Columbia University, one of several schools targeted by the Trump administration. The administration is also reducing the workforce at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that oversees public health research, while trying to slash NIH funding to universities.
Researchers say threats to federal research funding and President Donald Trump's promise to eliminate any policy promoting 'diversity, equity and inclusion' are threatening a decades-long effort to improve how the nation studies the health of women and queer people, or improve treatments for the medical conditions that affect them. Agency employees have been warned not to approve grants that include words such as 'women,' 'trans' or 'diversity.'
That could mean halting efforts to improve the nation's understanding of conditions that predominantly affect women, including endometriosis, menopause, infectious diseases contracted in pregnancy and pregnancy-related death. It could also stall research meant to treat conditions such as asthma, heart disease, depression and substance abuse disorders, which have different health implications for women versus men, and also have outsized impacts on LGBTQ+ people and people of color — often underresearched patients.
'I want every generation to be healthier than the last, and I'm worried we may have some real setbacks,' said Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor and clinician at Johns Hopkins University who studies the consequences of pregnancy-related infections and the causes of birth defects.
The United States already lagged in promoting scientific inquiry that considered how sex and gender can influence health — and has a recent history of focusing research on White men. Less than 50 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actively discouraged researchers from including women who could become pregnant in clinical trials for new medical products, leaving it often unclear if U.S.-based therapeutics were safe for them. It wasn't until 1993 that clinical trials were legally required to include women and 'individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.'
Around that same time, the federal government launched offices within the NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA that focused on women's health and research. Since then, efforts to consider gender in medical research have progressed, if unevenly. A report last fall from the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine found that in the past decade, the level of federal funding devoted to women's health had actually declined relative to the rest of the NIH's budget.
The report, requested by Congress, also found that researchers still struggled to understand the implications of common conditions such as endometriosis and uterine fibroids, the long-term implications of pregnancy, or gender gaps in mental health conditions — all areas where Black women in particular experience worse health outcomes or face heightened barriers to appropriate treatment. Investments had stalled in looking at how sex and gender interact with race or class in influencing people's health outcomes.
The report ultimately called for an additional $15.8 billion over the next five years to address the gaps. Now, efforts to cut federal research funding and limit its acknowledgment of gender could thwart forward momentum.
'If we are banning this study of these issues, or deciding we're not going to invest in that work, it freezes progress,' said Alina Salganicoff, a lead author on the report and vice president for women's health at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization.
Already, researchers whose work touches on sex or gender are anticipating losses in federal funding, which they fear could imperil their work moving forward. Some have already had their grants terminated. Many specified that they were not speaking as representatives of their employers.
Whitney Wharton, a cognitive neuroscientist at Emory University, learned on February 28 that she would no longer receive federal funding for her multi-year study looking at effective caregiving models for LGBTQ+ seniors at risk of developing Alzheimer's. Research suggests that queer adults may be at greater risk of age-related cognitive decline, but they are far less likely to be the subject of research.
Wharton is one of numerous scientists across the country whose work was terminated because it included trans people, per letters those researchers received from the NIH. 'Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,' the letter said.
Though Wharton's work focused on queer adults, it proposed caregiving models that could apply to other people often without family support structures who are at heightened risk for Alzheimer's as they age.
'The sexual and gender minority community is more likely to age alone in place. We're less likely to be married or have children,' Wharton said. 'These additional roadblocks are not only unnecessary but they are unnecessarily cruel to a community that's already facing a lot of hardship.'
One of Wharton's collaborators on the study is Jace Flatt, an associate professor of health and behavioral sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who also received separate notice from the NIH that their research beyond the study had been terminated. Flatt studies LGBTQ+ people and their risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, as well as thinking about their needs for care.
Flatt said NIH funding for three of their studies have been canceled in recent weeks, as well as a Department of Defense-funded grant looking at veterans' health that included LGBTQ+ people. The defense letter stated the research did not align with Trump's executive order that recognizes only two sexes, male and female.
Flatt estimates about $4.5 million in federal funding was cut from their research, requiring some staff layoffs.
'I made a personal commitment to do this work. Now I'm being told, 'Your research doesn't benefit all Americans, and it's unscientific,' and basically that I'm promoting inaccurate research and findings. The tone comes across as like it's harmful to society,' they said. 'I'm a public health practitioner. I'm about improving the health and quality of life of all people.'
Jill Becker, a neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, uses rodent studies to better understand how sex differences can affect people's responses to drug addiction and treatment. Her work has helped suggest that some forms of support and treatment can be more effective for male rats and others for female ones — a divide she hopes to interrogate to help develop appropriate treatments for people who are in recovery for substance use disorder, and, in particular, better treatment for cisgender men.
Becker's studies were singled out in a Senate hearing by Rand Paul, a Republican, who characterized it as the type of wasteful research that shouldn't continue. Because she looks at sex differences, she anticipates that when her NIH funding finishes at the end of the year, the agency will no longer support her — a development that could eventually force her lab and others doing similar work to shut down entirely.
'If we no longer include women or females in our research, we're obviously going to go back to not having answers that are going to be applicable to both sexes,' she said. 'And I think that's a big step backward.'
The NIH did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In interviews with The 19th, academics broadly described a sense of widespread uncertainty. Beyond federal funding, many are unsure if they will still be able to use the government-operated databases they have relied on to conduct comprehensive research. Others said the NIH representatives they typically work with have left the organization. Virtually all said their younger colleagues are reconsidering whether to continue health research, or whether a different career path could offer more stability.
But the Trump administration has remained steadfast. In his recent joint address to Congress, Trump praised efforts to cut 'appalling waste,' singling out '$8 million to make mice transgender' — a framing that misrepresented studies involving asthma and breast cancer.
The government's rhetoric is now deterring some scholars from certain areas of study, even when they recognize a public health benefit. One North Carolina-based psychologist who studies perinatal mental health and hormone therapy for menopausal people said her team had considered expanding their research to look at that treatment's mental health implications for trans people.
'It's important, and I don't have any way of doing that work at the moment,' said the psychologist, who asked that her name be withheld from publication because she fears publicly criticizing the NIH could jeopardize research funding. 'There is potential for that line of research in the future, but not in this funding environment.'
The concerns spread beyond those who receive government funding. Katy Kozhimannil, a public health professor at the University of Minnesota, doesn't receive NIH support for her research on pregnancy-related health and access to obstetrics care in rural areas. Her work has looked at perinatal health care for Native Americans, including examining intimate partner violence as a risk factor for pregnancy-related death. The findings, she hopes, could be used to help develop policy addressing the fact that Native American and Alaska Native people are more likely to die during pregnancy than White people.
But future studies may not be possible, she fears, because of an interruption in data collection to PRAMS, a comprehensive federal database with detailed information about Americans' pregnancy-related health outcomes. Within the first weeks of the new administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly told state health departments to stop collecting data to maintain the system, while saying that it will be brought back online once it is in compliance with the new government diversity policies.
Kozhimannil and other scholars in her field are worried about what that means — and whether PRAMS will continue to publish information showing outcomes by race or geography. Those would be tremendous omissions: A vast body of data shows that in the United States, Black and American Indian women are at elevated risk of dying because of pregnancy. People in rural areas face greater barriers to reproductive health care than those in urban ones. Without the information PRAMS is known for, Kozhimannil said, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct research that could address those divides.
It's not clear if or when that information will be available, she added. One of her doctoral students requested access to PRAMS data in January and has still not heard back on whether it will be made available to her — a delay that is 'not normal,' Kozhimannil said.
'It's hard to imagine getting toward a future where fewer moms die giving birth in this country, because the tools we had to imagine that are not available,' she said. 'I'm a creative person and I've been doing this a while, and I care a lot about it. But it's pushing the boundaries of my creativity and my innovation as a researcher when some of the basic tools are not there.'
Paul Prince, a spokesperson for the CDC, acknowledged 'some schedule adjustments' to PRAMS to comply with Trump's executive orders, but claimed it does not affect the program's continuation. He added: 'PRAMS was not shut down.'
'PRAMS remains operational and continues its mission — identifying issues impacting high-risk mothers and infants, tracking health trends, and measuring progress toward improving maternal and infant health,' he said in an email.
It's unclear the scope of long-term ramifications to health research, but Kathryn 'Katie' Schubert is tracking it closely. She is the president and CEO of the Society for Women's Health Research, an organization that has advocated on decades of congressional policy. In 2005, the group released a report that found just 3 percent of grants awarded by NIH took sex differences into consideration.
In February, her organization and other groups sent a letter to the administration highlighting the need to continue prioritizing women's health research.
'We have gotten to the point where we know what the problems are. We know where we would like to try to solve for — so how are we going to find these solutions, and what's the action plan?' she told The 19th.
In the past, Trump has shown a willingness to address women's health inequity in at least in some arenas. A 2016 law, signed by former President Barack Obama, established a committee on how to better incorporate pregnant and lactating people into clinical trials. Trump continued that work under his first administration.
Still, when pharmaceutical companies began developing vaccines against COVID-19 in 2020, they at first did not include pregnant or breastfeeding people in clinical trials, despite federal policy encouraging them to do so and data showing that pregnant people were at higher risk of complications from the virus. Those same vaccine trials also initially excluded people who were HIV positive — a policy with particular ramifications for trans people, who are living with HIV at a higher rate than cisgender people — and only changed their policy after public outcry.
Trump returned to power on the heels of a renowned federal focus on women's health research and gender equity. In 2023, President Joe Biden announced the first-ever White House Initiative on Women's Health Research to address chronic underfunding.
During his final State of the Union address, Biden called on Congress to invest $12 billion in new funding for women's health research. He followed that with an executive order directing federal agencies to expand and improve related research efforts.
In December, former First Lady Jill Biden led a conference at the White House where she highlighted nearly $1 billion in funding committed over the past year toward women's health research. She told a room that included researchers: 'Today isn't the finish line; it's the starting point. We — all of us — we have built the momentum. Now it's up to us to make it unstoppable.'
The Trump administration rescinded the council that oversaw the research initiative. The press office for the Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Schubert said prioritizing women's health has bipartisan support, and she remains hopeful of its popularity across both sides of the aisle. She also recognizes it could mean a new era of investment sources.
'We'll continue as an organization, of course, with our partners, to work to fulfill our mission and to advocate for that federal investment and to make sure that the workforce is there and make that policy change. We'll do that under the best of times and the worst of times,' she said. 'But I think when we think about sort of the broader community — we've seen other philanthropic organizations come in and say, 'OK, we're ready to partner and really make this investment on the private side.''
Women's health research has more visibility than ever, and not just because some high-profile celebrities and media personalities are investing time and money toward addressing it. Social media algorithms are also increasingly targeting messaging around women's health and wellness. Economists estimate that investing $350 million in research that focuses on women could yield $14 billion in economic returns.
'Yes, we are in a very difficult time when it comes to the federal budget,' Schubert said. 'Even in spite of that, there will be opportunities to see this issue continue to rise to the top.'
The speed and scope of those opportunities may not extend to researchers like Flatt in Nevada. They plan to appeal their NIH funding cuts, but they don't feel optimistic — in part because the letters state that no modifications of their projects will change the agency's decision.
Flatt noted that in recent weeks, some people have suggested that they exclude transgender people from their studies. Flatt said excluding people of all genders is not pro-science.
'I refuse to do that,' they said. 'The administration is saying that it needs to be for all Americans. They are Americans.'
Fodera, the Columbia doctoral student, will continue her research on uterine fibroids for now, due partly to timing and luck: The fellowship had already paid out her stipend for the semester, and her adviser pooled some money together from another source.
But the future of her fellowship is in question, and such research opportunities are closing elsewhere. Fodera is expected to graduate in a few months, and plans to continue in academia with the goal of becoming a professor. She's looking for a postdoctoral position, and is now considering opportunities outside of the United States.
'This is really going to hurt science overall,' she said. 'There is going to be a brain drain from the U.S.'
The post What happens to health research when 'women' is a banned word? appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The difference between palliative care and hospice
The difference between palliative care and hospice

UPI

time5 hours ago

  • UPI

The difference between palliative care and hospice

If a doctor diagnoses you with a serious illness and suggests palliative care, don't jump to conclusions. It doesn't mean you have mere months to live, NIH News in Health emphasizes. Palliative care, which is focused on comfort care and symptom management, may be recommended at any stage of a chronic or serious illness. But it is often confused with hospice care, which is comfort care for patients in the final months of life and requires that all treatments be discontinued. "Embracing palliative care does not mean that you're giving up on treatment," said Alexis Bakos, an aging expert at the National Institutes of Health. "Ideally, palliative care should be offered at the very beginning of a diagnosis of any serious illness." Diagnoses like chronic heart and lung disease, cancer and neurodegenerative illnesses like dementia and Parkinson's all fall under the definition of "serious." These illnesses lower a patient's quality of life or ability to perform everyday tasks like cooking or bathing. A palliative care team can help patients cope with physical, psychological, emotional or spiritual suffering associated with these diagnoses, according to News in Health. They can not only help patients manage symptoms but also assist providers in coordinating complex care. Dr. Matthew DeCamp, a physician at the University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, describes palliative care as a "holistic approach" to medicine and caregiving. "It places the patient's quality of life and needs and values front and center," he told News in Health. A pallative care provider typically meets with a patient soon after they are diagnosed with a serious disease to explain the many ways they can lend a hand - from help coordinating care to helping patients create an advance directive, which spells out their wishes for care if they become unable to speak for themselves. "They will learn your preferences for care and communication," said Dr. Lori Wiener, a palliative care expert at the NIH. Many patients welcome the assist, because planning for a serious illness is often complicated. "Patients and families often remain unaware of how their serious illness may progress," DeCamp said. "They may not know how long they might be expected to live or how long or what types of symptoms they might have. Physicians, nurses and other members of the care team are also historically not very good at predicting the course of a disease." These days, AI tools can help with that. But not all doctors use them and when they do, patients might misinterpret findings they spot in their medical records, said DeCamp, who is studying ethical issues surrounding use of AI. Weiner's team, which is studying ways to help kids with cancer communicate their wishes to family and health care providers, has created a guide called "Voicing My CHOiCES" that helps teens and young adults consider and spell out their hopes, fears and values. It has also developed an electronic screening tool called "Checking IN," which helps doctors understand what, specifically, distresses their young patients so they can be better prepared for visits. Palliative care specialists can help patients understand their prognosis and their treatment options - and help them be comfortable. So NIH experts urge patients who are diagnosed with serious illnesses to ask their doctor about palliative care if it isn't offered to them right away. "Earlier NIH research was focused on making sure that primary care clinicians were aware of palliative care," Bakos said, adding that NIH is looking now at ways to involve more specialists such as E.R. doctors, neurologists and ICU providers into discussions of palliative care. More information Learn more about palliative care and hospice at the National Institute on Aging. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

The under-the-radar injections people are taking to build muscle this summer — including the 'Wolverine' shot
The under-the-radar injections people are taking to build muscle this summer — including the 'Wolverine' shot

Business Insider

time10 hours ago

  • Business Insider

The under-the-radar injections people are taking to build muscle this summer — including the 'Wolverine' shot

Peptide injections are soaring in popularity for fitness and longevity. They're marketed as a "natural" supplement for muscle-building, fat loss, recovery, and more. The FDA has been cracking down on peptide sellers, and experts say some caution is warranted. People who want to feel younger, look fitter, or perhaps slough off a little layer of belly fat have been turning to an increasingly popular kind of treatment — one you can get without a prescription. They've got obscure names like BPC-157, tesamorelin, and cerebrolysin. All it takes is a tiny needle and a little clear vial filled with injectable molecules. Welcome to the world of peptides. "Absolutely everybody's asking for it, the field is popping," Dr. Florence Comite, a longevity doctor who serves concierge medicine clients in New York City, told Business Insider. The peptide landscape is so large that it almost defies definition. The prescription drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro, often used for weight loss, are peptides. So is insulin. There are peptides in skin creams, hair products, and high-end serums marketed to women to reduce fine lines and stimulate collagen. The wildly popular fitness supplement creatine? Also a peptide. Then, there are the gym bro shots, said to boost muscle, burn fat, stimulate testosterone, and aid recovery. Demand for peptide injections — something that biohackers and longevity-seekers have already been quietly using in the shadows for decades — is booming. Patients in pockets of the country saturated with peptides, like Beverly Hills, San Diego, Silicon Valley, and Manhattan are increasingly asking their doctors: "should I try peptides?" Many physicians aren't sure what to say because there isn't a ton of great evidence around about how much peptides can really do. Plus, the FDA has been cracking down on peptide compounders in recent years. They worry that the hype is outpacing good evidence. How peptides boost your body Unlike most pills that doctors prescribe, peptides live in a more slippery area, between drug and bodily substance. A peptide is a chain of organic compounds — specifically, amino acids — that stimulate natural processes. Depending on which amino acids a peptide is made of, and how it is used, the molecule can have all kinds of impacts on how our hormones operate. Peptides can improve fertility in both men and women, tamp down inflammation, remove dangerous visceral belly fat, or help build muscle. Others are thought to help improve sleep quality, even possibly improve brain health. "What's great about peptides is that they mimic the body," said Comite, who has been working with peptides since she was a research fellow at the National Institutes of Health over 30 years ago. Since most peptides are too fragile to be formulated as pills, they are often packaged as a clear liquid in a little vial. Users learn to inject their peptides using a very fine, short needle, right at home. The popularity of peptides has soared on their reputation as ostensibly "natural" products. The idea being that, unlike other drugs or steroids, peptides are a safer choice because they're just stimulating your body to do its own thing. Taking growth hormones, for example, comes with a suite of undesirable potential side effects, like an increased risk of cancer and type 2 diabetes. What if you could just take a peptide that would stimulate your own growth hormone to make you stronger, leaner, and more energetic? "The theory is that even if you use a growth hormone stimulating peptide, your body's only going to be able to make so much growth hormone," Dr. Sajad Zalzala, a longevity physician and one of the cofounders of AgelessRx, said. "Kind of like a check valve already in place. Again, that's the theory." The peptides gym bros take to get chiseled muscles One darling peptide of gym bros and longevity fiends alike is a substance called BPC-157. It's known as the "Wolverine" shot for its perceived ability to heal you up and regenerate your body real fast like the Marvel character, Logan, after a big fight. B-P-C stands for "body protection compound." BPC-157 was first derived from stomach juices. It's being investigated to treat inflammatory bowel diseases, including Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. But the reason that athletes like it is because it's thought to reduce inflammation and improve blood flow — and perhaps do even more. There are a few other super popular peptides: Tesamorelin, an injectable peptide, is prescribed to HIV patients to reduce excess belly fat. Sermorelin is supposed to help with sleep and recovery. CJC-1295 binds to growth hormone receptors in the body, and people often take it alongside impamorelin, which stimulates the hypothalamus. The two in tandem are said to deliver better muscle gains. On Reddit and YouTube people share how they "stack" different peptides like this, taking multiple different kinds with the goal of boosting the effects of each. Peptide fans get their shots at clinics and med spas — or, for less money, online. Increasingly, people are ordering peptides that are labeled "for research only," meaning they are supposed to be used by lab workers for experimentation, and were never meant to be put into human bodies. That's partly because the FDA crackdown on peptides has intensified in recent years, just as pharmaceutical compounding (a sort of acceptable way to get knock off medications) has surged in popularity, with people seeking cheaper versions of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro. At the beginning of 2022, the FDA had a list of four peptides that they said "may present significant safety risks" and should not be compounded. By the end of 2023, there were 26. Comite thinks the FDA crackdown is a shame. She is finding it harder and harder to source compounded liquid BPC-157. She often uses a patch form of BPC-157 on herself, placing it over sore areas or injuries. Recently, she tore a calf muscle, so she's been using it there, but she also just likes how taking a little bit of it keeps her active and moving. "I use it almost every day," she said. "It's amazing for joints and everything — at a very tiny dose." Zalzala, who doesn't usually prescribe peptides, ordered some topical BPC-157 recently when his wife had a knee injury. "My wife says it works," he said, though he cautioned that it's hard to really know if that's true without more proper research. Bracken Darrell, the CEO of VF Corporation and one of Comite's patients, is also a BPC-157 convert. A self-proclaimed "basketball nut," he's on the court about three days a week. On the days when he doesn't pick up a ball, he's out cross-training on a bike or lifting weights. So when he tore his meniscus about four months ago, he was worried. Under Comite's supervision, he started taking liquid BPC-157 about three to four times a week. He told BI it was "weird" at first, learning to inject the needle into an area of skin near his knee. But, pretty soon, it was just part of his routine. "I believe it helped a lot, but it's hard to know for sure," he said. "There are people with a severely torn meniscus who don't ever play basketball again, and I'm back — I certainly wouldn't conclude that's because I'm taking BPC-157, but at a minimum it didn't hurt. And it sure seems like it helps." Proceed with caution, doctors say Even longevity doctors who prescribe and use peptides regularly agree that some folks are overdoing it, and that could be dangerous. "Proceed with caution, because you have to know the source and you have to know it's active," Comite said. "It's not like Lowe's or Home Depot where you can get stuff and you can fix the plumbing." In reality, the evidence for peptides is still murky. There are no big, randomized clinical trials like what we have for prescription drugs or vaccines. The current hype is based on anecdotal evidence, a few small human studies from decades ago, and rodent studies. "People wanna take the peptides because they're not from big pharma, they're not mainstream medicine, they gotta be better than those cockamamie doctors," Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and longevity expert, said recently on the Dax Shepard podcast. "Where's the data?" For people who are using peptides, experts shared two pieces of advice: Comite urges patients to start slow. A common mistake people who are dosing themselves make is thinking that "if a little bit is good, then a lot must be better," she said. That's not the case. "Taking mega doses of tesmorelin along with testosterone causes your organs to overgrow," Comite said. Sometimes she'll see a toned gymgoer with a potbelly, and wonder whether that's due to an enlarged liver or spleen. Darrell recommends testing your peptides with an independent lab so you know what you're getting is both real and uncontaminated. Zalzala says his company started thinking about offering peptides a few years back, due to consumer demand, but they haven't yet. There are just so many peptides out there, and it's hard to tell which might be the very best. Some of the most research-backed ways to have an impact on your longevity and fitness are still the simplest anyway: eat decent amounts of fiber and protein regularly, work out — at least a couple sessions with weights each week, and cut back (or ideally, eliminate) liquid sugar in your diet like juice and soda.

GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding
GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding

The Hill

timea day ago

  • The Hill

GOP senators urge White House to release delayed NIH funding

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and 13 other Senate Republicans are urging the Trump administration to release National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that has been held up for months. The GOP senators warned in a letter to White House budget chief Russell Vought that the 'slow disbursement of funds' that Congress appropriated in March 'risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports.' 'Suspension of these appropriated funds — whether formally withheld or functionally delayed — could threaten Americans' ability to access better treatments and limit our nation's leadership in biomedical science,' the senators warned. 'It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results,' they wrote. The Trump administration suspended or cut many NIH research grants earlier this year in order to undertake a thorough review to ensure they complied with Trump's orders to end federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. A database set up by a Harvard University researcher estimated that by the end of May more than 2,100 NIH grants worth more than $9 billion had been cancelled. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told senators in March at his confirmation hearing that his agency would restart grant reviews but an analysis by STAT, a health care news site, last month found that NIH had made little progress in narrowing the funding gap created by the freeze on grant approvals. Now Republican senators are trying to ramp up pressure on the Office of Management and Budget. They told Vought that they share his commitment to ensuring NIH funds are 'used responsibly and not diverted to ideological or unaccountable programs.' But they also argued that starving the NIH of funding could inadvertently undermine trust in the agency. 'Withholding or suspending these funds would jeopardize that trust and hinder progress on critical health challenges facing our nation. Ultimately, this is about finding cures and seeing them through to fruition,' the senators wrote. 'We respectfully request that you ensure the timely release of all FY25 NIH appropriations in accordance with congressional intent,' they added. The other GOP signatories were Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito ( Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), David McCormick (Pa.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Todd Young (Ind.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store