Skip to Main Content

WASHINGTON — The White House is proposing a $1.2 billion cut this year to the National Institutes of Health’s budget, targeting research grants.

The proposed NIH cut is part of $18 billion in spending reductions that President Trump’s team is proposing to Congress for the current fiscal year, which ends in October, according to a summary obtained by STAT.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!

  • The government should not wholly fund the research. That being said, the companies who should be funding the research because they will benefit from new treatments should have a government review to ensure the research is not biased.

  • As a bipartisan voter, I totally disagree with cutting funds to the NIH. Many leaders are republican oppose the cutting of funding.

  • Recent research demonstrate that decades of basic research are commonly required for scientific discoveries to mature to the point that they generate successful products. We have examined the path by which discoveries in basic, biomedical science are translated into new drugs. The results show that the time from the initiation of new areas of research to the approval of new drugs using modern, targeted or biological technologies is typically 30 to 40 years. These observations demonstrate the critical importance of long-term funding for basic research. Reducing support for basic research may delay drug discovery and development for decades to come.

  • If this is the case then NIH needs to seriously look into decreasing overhead rates to make up some of the funding rates for PIs. Similarly, they need to ensure that medical schools are investing in investigators.

  • Let’s assume NIH is really discovering treatments on those critical areas.
    Problem is that government is funding the research, then pharma companies are selling the drugs making huge profit. So it is government subsidy for private pharma industry.

Comments are closed.