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 Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • 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. http://www.bentley.edu/prepared/new-study-demonstrates-importance-long-term-funding-cancer-research. 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.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy