Vaughn Cooper, a microbiologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, was thrilled when his proposal to study the microbes that colonize catheters received an outstanding score from a panel of experts convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cooper, alongside his collaborator Chelsie Armbruster at the University of Buffalo, aimed to enhance treatments for individuals, particularly the elderly, who suffer from urinary tract infections following extended catheter use.
Receiving a high score from the expert panel typically ensured that their grant application would be funded by the NIH. However, the political landscape shifted dramatically with the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Following a series of executive orders, Cooper, like thousands of other scientists nationwide, finds himself in a state of uncertainty and delay.
The NIH advisors have been unable to convene and recommend funding for research grants due to the Trump administration's restriction on announcing meetings in the Federal Register. Despite a judge's temporary ruling to resume funding, the necessary Federal Register notices have not been issued, preventing advisory councils from meeting or rescheduling.
"This feels like an evil use of bureaucracy against science," Cooper stated, expressing frustration over the situation. While biomedical research in America continues, the interference with NIH's routine operations has significantly disrupted the selection and funding of new scientific projects.
Data from an NIH database indicates that from January 20 to February 14, funding sent to external investigators was approximately $1 billion less than the same period the previous year. While existing research continues to be funded, future research awards are stalled. As the administration downsizes the government, scientists anticipate reduced funding, leading to potential layoffs and fewer student admissions into laboratories.
Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, emphasized, "The discoveries that aren't made can't be pointed to, as they will never occur." The delay in funding could have long-term effects, preventing potential breakthroughs in areas such as the biology of Parkinson's disease, breast cancer screening, and fundamental cell biology insights.
Last week, the cancellation of 42 study sections and panels was reported on an NIH website. These meetings, where experts review each grant's merit, are crucial for the advisory councils that recommend funding proposals. Even a six-month delay in grant money receipt can result in graduate students struggling to find jobs, paused research lines, or lab closures.
The firings of newly hired "probationary" workers at government agencies, including NIH and the National Science Foundation, which lost 10 percent of its staff, have further complicated the grant awarding process. Staff members report feeling anxious and demoralized as tasks are redistributed among a smaller workforce.
Typically, NIH receives about 80,000 grant applications annually, funding about the top fifth through a rigorous review process. However, the Trump administration's actions have disrupted this system significantly.
"Unless a miracle occurs with a dramatic reversal soon, we may witness major disruptions at universities in the coming months," warned a source familiar with the grant process.
Beyond immediate effects such as job losses and project halts, the potential historic downsizing of federal investment in science could have profound consequences. While already-funded programs continue, the administration's drastic actions threaten the aspirational side of science, from recruiting young researchers to building cutting-edge labs.
Bita Moghaddam, a behavioral scientist at Oregon Health & Science University, highlighted the long-term impact of halted study sections: "Science is a process. If you halt it, you cannot just start and resume."
Jennifer Unger, a professor at the University of Southern California, noted the chaos's effect on her program, which typically admits 10 PhD candidates annually. This year, due to budget cuts, they will likely admit only four.
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, graduate admissions into a biomedical research program will be reduced by 25 percent, according to biology professor Mark Peifer.
In a more dire situation, an assistant professor at a medical school, fearing reprisal, reported that their lab's future is uncertain due to delayed funding. Despite a top-scoring grant proposal, the next funding step was canceled, forcing the scientist to seek alternative funds to keep the lab operational.
Joshua Gordon, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, warned, "The effect of even a few months of delays would devastate the research community and hinder progress towards cures for millions of Americans."
