A federal judge made a significant ruling on Wednesday, blocking the Trump administration's attempt to implement drastic cuts to medical research funding. Many scientists have expressed concerns that these cuts would not only jeopardize patient care but also lead to substantial job losses within the research sector.
The proposed changes by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) aimed to strip research groups of hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for covering indirect expenses associated with vital studies on diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. These indirect costs are essential for a range of activities, from conducting clinical trials of new treatments to basic laboratory research, which forms the foundation of crucial medical discoveries.
A coalition of 22 states, along with various organizations representing universities, hospitals, and research institutions, filed separate lawsuits to challenge these funding cuts. They argue that the cuts would cause “irreparable harm” to the medical research community. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, based in Boston, had previously issued a temporary block on these cuts last month. On Wednesday, she expanded this ruling by filing a preliminary injunction, which will keep the cuts on hold while the legal proceedings continue.
The NIH is the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, having awarded approximately $35 billion in grants to various research groups in the previous year. This substantial funding is divided into two categories: direct costs, which cover researchers’ salaries and laboratory supplies, and indirect costs, which encompass the administrative and facility expenses necessary to support this vital work.
The Trump administration has labeled these indirect expenses as “overhead,” a characterization that universities and hospitals strongly contest. They argue that these costs are crucial and include essential services such as electricity to operate sophisticated equipment, hazardous waste disposal, compliance staff ensuring safety regulations are met, and janitorial services required to maintain laboratory environments.
Under the previous policy, the government negotiated indirect cost rates with institutions individually. For instance, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would receive an additional $50,000 to cover indirect expenses for a $100,000 project. However, the NIH’s new policy seeks to impose a flat cap on indirect costs at 15%, a change intended to save the agency approximately $4 billion annually.
Dr. David J. Skorton, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges and one of the plaintiffs in the case, praised the ruling. He stated, “These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives,” emphasizing that NIH-funded research plays a crucial role in benefiting every individual and community across America.
As of now, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, has not provided any immediate comment regarding the judge’s ruling or the ongoing legal matters.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department, which reports on these issues, receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group, as well as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. However, it is important to note that the AP is solely responsible for all content published.
