Contributor: Slashing NIH research guarantees a less healthy, less wealthy America

Yahoo

28-05-2025

In recent months, funding for biomedical research from the National Institutes of Health has been canceled, delayed and plunged into uncertainty. According to an April STAT News analysis, NIH funding has decreased by at least $2.3 billion since the beginning of the year. KFF Health News reports the full or partial termination of approximately 780 NIH grants between Feb. 28 and March 28 alone. Additional NIH funding cuts loom on the horizon, including proposed cuts to indirect costs.
Amid this volatility, one thing remains clear: NIH grant funding is a valuable, proven investment, economically and in terms of improving human health.
A recent United for Medical Research report shows that in fiscal year 2024, research funded by the NIH generated $94.58 billion in economic activity nationwide, a 156% return on investment. Further, the report shows that NIH funding supported 407,782 jobs nationwide. According to the NIH's own figures, patents derived from work it has funded produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents.
These economic returns — including a return on investment that would thrill any startup or stock investor — cannot begin to capture the impact on individuals, families and communities in terms of increased longevity and higher quality of life.
While it is hard to precisely quantify human health improvements resulting from NIH-funded research, there are proxy measures. As one example, a study published in JAMA Health Forum found that NIH funding supported the development of 386 of 387 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-19. Many of the approved drugs address the most pressing human health concerns of our time, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease.
Many other NIH-funded advancements represent what is now considered common knowledge, such as the relationship between cholesterol and cardiovascular health, or standard practice, such as screening newborns for serious diseases that may be treatable with early medical intervention. But each of these fundamental aspects of contemporary medicine had to first be discovered, tested and proved. They represent what NIH funding can do — and the type of paradigm-shifting advancements in medicine that are now very much at risk.
Consider the biotechnology industry as one such paradigm shift. In the 1970s, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer were the first scientists to clone DNA and to transplant genes from one living organism to another. This work launched the biotechnology industry.
Two decades later, the NIH and the Department of Energy began a 13-year effort to sequence the human genome, including through university-based research grants. In 2003, the consortium of researchers produced a sequence accounting for 92% of the human genome. In 2022, a group of researchers primarily funded by the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute produced a complete human genome sequence. This work paved the way for insights into inherited diseases, pharmacogenomics (how genetics affect the body's response to medications) and precision medicine.
NIH funding has also led to major breakthroughs in cancer treatments. In 1948, Sidney Farber demonstrated the first use of a chemotherapy drug, aminopterin, to induce remission in children with acute leukemia. Before Farber's research, which was funded in part by the NIH, children with acute leukemia were unlikely to survive even five years.
Over the years that followed, other modes of cancer treatment such as immunotherapy emerged, first as novel areas of inquiry, followed by drug development and clinical trials. NIH funding supported, among others, the development of CAR T cell therapy, which genetically modifies a patients' own T-cells to fight cancer. CAR T cell therapy has improved outcomes for many patients with persistent blood cancers, and clinical trials are ongoing to discover other cancers that might be treatable with CAR T cell therapies.
For decades, scientists knew that breast cancer could run in families and hypothesized a genetic role. In the 1990s, teams of scientists — supported at least in part by NIH funding — tracked down the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes responsible for inherited predispositions to breast and other cancers. Today, many people undergo testing for BRCA gene mutations to make informed decisions about prevention, screening and treatment.
These kinds of advancements, along with improvements in detection and screening, have meaningfully reduced cancer mortality rates. After hitting a smoking-related peak in 1991, U.S. mortality rates from all cancers dropped by 34% as of 2022, according to the American Cancer Society. For children with acute leukemias, who had effectively no long-term chance of survival just 75 years ago, the numbers are even more dramatic. The five-year survival rate is now approximately 90% for children with acute lymphocytic leukemia and between 65% and 70% for those with acute myelogenous leukemia.
These examples represent a fraction of the tremendous progress that has occurred through decades of compounding knowledge and research. Reductions in NIH funding now threaten similar breakthroughs that are the prerequisites to better care, better technology and better outcomes in the most common health concerns and diseases of our time.
It is not research alone that is threatened by NIH funding cuts. Researchers, too, face new uncertainties. We have heard firsthand the anxiety around building a research career in the current environment. Many young physician-scientists wonder whether it will be financially viable to build their own lab in the U.S., or to find jobs at research institutions that must tighten their belts. Many medical residents, fellows and junior faculty are considering leaving the U.S. to train and build careers elsewhere. Losing early-career researchers to other fields or countries would be a blow to talent for biomedical research institutions nationwide and weaken the country's ability to compete globally in the biomedical sector.
The effects of decreased NIH funding might not be immediately visible to most Americans, but as grant cancellations and delays mount, there will be a price. NIH funding produces incredible results. Cuts will set scientific research back and result in losses in quality of life and longevity for generations of Americans in years to come.
Euan Ashley is the chair of the Stanford University department of medicine and a professor of medicine and of genetics. He is the author of 'The Genome Odyssey: Medical Mysteries and the Incredible Quest to Solve Them.' Rachel Keranen is a writer in the Stanford department of medicine.
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.