Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Cuts to science research funding cut American lives short − federal support is essential for medical breakthroughs

Opinion

Cuts to science research funding cut American lives short − federal support is essential for medical breakthroughs

A stethoscope and medical charts.

Getty Images, krisanapong detraphiphat

Nearly every modern medical treatment can be traced to research funded by the National Institutes of Health: from over-the-counter and prescription medications that treat high cholesterol and pain to protection from infectious diseases such as polio and smallpox.

The remarkable successes of the decades-old partnership between biomedical research institutions and the federal government are so intertwined with daily life that it’s easy to take them for granted.


However, the scientific work driving these medical advances and breakthroughs is in jeopardy. Federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are terminating hundreds of active research grants under the current administration’s direction. The administration has also proposed a dramatic reduction in federal support of the critical infrastructure that keeps labs open and running. Numerous scientists and health professionals have noted that changes will have far-reaching, harmful outcomes for the health and well-being of the American people.

The negative consequences of defunding U.S. biomedical research can be difficult to recognize. Most breakthroughs, from the basic science discoveries that reveal the causes of diseases to the development of effective treatments and cures, can take years. Real-time progress can be hard to measure.

Medical breakthroughs are built on years of painstaking research. Scott Olson/Getty Image

As biomedical researchers studying infectious diseases, viruses and immunology, we and our colleagues see this firsthand in our own work. Thousands of ongoing national and international projects dedicated to uncovering the causes of life-threatening diseases and developing new treatments to improve and save lives are supported by federal agencies such as the NIH and NSF.

Considering a few of the breakthroughs made possible through U.S. federal support can help illustrate not only the significant inroads biomedical research has made for preventing, treating and curing human maladies, but what all Americans stand to lose if the U.S. reduces its investment in these endeavors.

A cure for cancer

The hope and dream of curing cancer unites many scientists, health professionals and affected families across the U.S. After decades of ongoing NIH-supported research, scientists have made significant progress in realizing this goal.

The National Cancer Institute of the NIH is the world’s largest funder of cancer research. This investment has led to advances in cancer treatment and prevention that helped reduce the overall U.S. cancer death rate by 33% from 1991 to 2021.

Basic science research on what causes cancer has led to new strategies to harness a patient’s own immune system to eliminate tumors. For example, all 12 patients in a 2022 clinical trial testing one type of immunotherapy had their rectal cancer completely disappear, without remission or adverse effects.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Another example of progress is the 2024 results of an ongoing clinical trial of a targeted therapy for lung cancer, showing an 84% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. Similarly, in a study of women who were immunized against the human papillomavirus at age 12 or 13, none developed the disease later. Since the widespread adoption of HPV vaccination, cervical cancer deaths have dropped 62%.

Despite these incredible successes, there is still a long way to go. In 2024, over 2 million people in the U.S. were estimated to be newly diagnosed with cancer, and 611,720 were expected to die from the disease.

Without sustained federal support for cancer research, progress toward curing cancer and reducing its death rate will stall.

Autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases

Nearly every family is touched in some way by autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. Government-funded research has enabled major advances to combat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

For example, approximately 1 in 5 Americans have arthritis, an autoimmune disease that causes joint swelling and stiffness. A leading cause of disability and economic costs in the U.S., there is no cure for arthritis. But new drugs in development are able to significantly improve symptoms and slow or prevent disease progression.

Researchers are also gaining insight into what causes multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease where the immune system attacks the protective covering of nerves and can result in paralysis. Scientists recently found a link between multiple sclerosis and Epstein-Barr virus, a pathogen estimated to infect over 90% of adults around the world. While multiple sclerosis is currently incurable, identifying its underlying cause can provide new avenues for prevention and treatment.

The NIH’s BRAIN Initiative has invested more than $3 billion in neuroscience research since it began in 2013. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Alzheimer’s disease causes irreversible nerve damage and is the leading cause of dementia. In 2024, 6.9 million Americans ages 65 and older were living with Alzheimer’s. Most treatments address cognitive and behavioral symptoms. However, two new drugs developed with NIH-supported research and clinical trials were approved in July 2023 and July 2024 to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s. Federal funding is also supporting the development of blood tests for earlier detection of the disease.

None of these breakthroughs are a cure. But they represent important steps forward on the path toward ultimately reducing or eliminating these devastating ailments. Lack of funding will slow or block further progress, leading to the continued rise of the incidence and severity of these conditions.

Infectious diseases and the next pandemic

The world’s capacity to combat infectious disease will also be weakened by cuts to U.S. federal support of biomedical research.

Over the past 50 years, medical and public health advances have led to the eradication of smallpox globally and the elimination of polio in the U.S. HIV/AIDS, once a death sentence, is now a disease that can be managed with medication. Moreover, a new version of treatments called preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, offers complete protection against HIV transmission when taken only twice per year.

Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the critical role biomedical research plays in responding to public health threats. Increased federal support of science during this time allowed the United States to emerge with new drugs, vaccine platforms with the potential to treat a variety of chronic diseases, and insights on how to effectively detect and respond to pandemic threats.

The ongoing avian influenza outbreak and its spillover into American dairy herds and poultry farms is another pandemic threat looming on the horizon. Rather than build upon infrastructure for outbreak surveillance and preparedness, grants that would allow scientists to better understand long COVID-19, vaccines and other pandemic-related research are being cut. Decreased funding of biomedical research will hamper the U.S.’s ability to respond to the next pandemic, putting everyone at risk.

Research across the country has ground to a halt as grants remain in limbo or have been terminated altogether. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Losses from defunding biomedical research

The National Institutes of Health contributed over $100 billion to support research that ultimately led to the development of all new drugs approved from 2010 to 2016 alone. Over 90% of this funding was for basic research into understanding the causes of disease that provides the foundation for new treatments.

Under the new directive to eliminate projects that support or use terms associated with diversity, equity and inclusion, the NIH and other federal agencies have made deep cuts to biomedical research that will directly affect patient lives.

Already, nearly 41% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime, and nearly 11% with Alzheimer’s. About 1 in 5 Americans will die from heart disease, and nearly 1.4 million will be rushed to an emergency room due to pneumonia from an infectious disease.

Defunding biomedical research will result in a cascade of effects. There will likely be fewer clinical trials, fewer new treatments and fewer lifesaving drugs. Labs will likely shut down, jobs will be lost, and the process of discovery will stall. The U.S.’s health care system, economy and standing as the world’s leader in scientific innovation will likely decline.

Moreover, when the pipelines of scientific progress are turned off, they will not so easily be turned back on. These consequences will affect all Americans and the rest of the world for decades.

University shortfalls directly resulting from cuts to research support will dramatically reduce the capacity of American institutions to educate and provide opportunities for the next generation. Funding cuts have led to the shuttering or heavy reduction of training programs for future scientists.

Graduate students and postdoctoral trainees are the lifeblood of biomedical research. Supporting these young people committed to public service through research and health care is also an investment in medical advancements and public health. But the uncertainty and instability resulting from the divestment of federally funded programs will likely severely deplete the biomedical workforce, crippling the United States’ ability to deliver future biomedical breakthroughs.

By cutting biomedical research funding, Americans and the rest of the world stand to lose new cures, new treatments and an entire generation of researchers.

Cuts to science research funding cut American lives short − federal support is essential for medical breakthroughs was originally published in The Conversation and shared with permission.

Deborah Fuller is a Professor of Microbiology at the School of Medicine of the University of Washington.

Patrick Mitchell is an Assistant Professor of Microbiology at the School of Medicine of the University of Washington.


Read More

Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, CA

Colourful vibrant Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, California, USA

Getty Images

Fund the Community DataBank

San Francisco residents need an organization that can follow public money and decisions before the damage is done. I propose a Community DataBank, beginning with Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow, supported by a modest, publicly approved allocation of our taxes. Residents should be able to find out what government is doing without requiring everyone to research City Hall.

My earlier proposal placed two desks outside the Mayor’s Office, staffed by neighborhood association members who would watch who goes in and out and follow the public business behind those visits. The DataBank would give those desks useful work and reliable records. A visitor’s presence would prompt a question; official documents would establish what actually happened.

Keep ReadingShow less
US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

Getty Images

America’s Gridlock Is Beijing’s Best Argument

Americans tend to treat democracy’s superiority as settled, and the long-run evidence backs them up. A major study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that countries that democratize end up about 20 percent richer per person within a generation. But most of the world does not grade governments on long-run studies. For billions of people outside the wealthy West, the test is simpler: does the power stay on, are food prices steady, is there work, and do the roads get built? When the stomach is empty, a ballot can feel like a luxury.

China understands this and sells its model on exactly those terms. Its GDP per capita has climbed from about $300 in 1980 to nearly $15,000 today, by IMF figures, and the World Bank credits it with lifting some 800 million people out of extreme poverty. India, the world’s largest democracy, started from a similar place and sits near $2,800. Beijing’s centralized system, paired with Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, built power plants, factories and rail lines at a pace India’s more deliberative politics has not matched. Anyone who values liberty will find little to admire in that model. It does explain why the model sells.

Keep ReadingShow less
American soldier in headquarter control center

American soldier in headquarter control center

Getty Images

Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria

When American forces conducted airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation signaled a renewal of security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. Yet for Nigerians living in communities plagued by terrorism, kidnapping, and armed attacks, a critical question remained: Will these strikes make their daily lives any safer?

That question demands serious consideration in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing, and tactical training. Yet, armed violence continues to disrupt daily life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the effectiveness of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Hegseth

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on October 28, 2026.

(Photo by Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

Pete Hegseth and the High Price of Compromised Governance

Just days after a historic midterm election in which everyday Americans sent a clear, undeniable demand for political accountability and transparency, the halls of Congress have devolved into a new theater of crisis. Republican Representative Thomas Massie’s introduction of eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has thrown the Department—and the nation’s fragile democratic norms—into uncharted territory.

Massie, a longtime Trump critic who plans to retire from Congress at the end of the year, accuses Hegseth of bypassing Congress and violating constitutional limits on war powers.

Keep ReadingShow less