Science on the Chopping Block

I hoped that my first story for Salisbury’s Take would be an exciting research discovery, or an optimistic look at progress fighting disease. Instead, we’re kicking off with a downer of a story about the long-term effects of slashing funding for biomedical research. But it’s important, so buckle up.

It’s no secret that the Trump administration has been axing jobs and funding throughout the federal government. In most cases, these cuts are felt instantly: Medicaid recipients who don’t get their checks, taxpayers whose refunds might get delayed, and so on. But in science the effect of cuts is far more insidious. We won’t fully understand the scope of what has happened for years or even decades to come, if ever.

Science — and, more specifically, biomedical research — happens slowly. Before the next wonder drug makes it to your local pharmacy, it has gone through years of clinical trials to make sure it’s safe and effective, and before that it spent years in animal studies to check for toxicity, and before that it was studied for years in cells on a lab bench. As consumers we don’t fully appreciate just how much long-term planning goes into every experiment that’s needed to bring a scientific advance into our lives. Take the mRNA vaccines that were so important in reining in the Covid pandemic: they seemed almost miraculous, ready for their first clinical trials just a few months after the novel virus was first identified. But the ability to develop mRNA vaccines was based on decades of research honing all of the different components that were eventually deployed for a response to the virus responsible for Covid.

When timelines are so long, any hiccup along the way can set science back months or years. The assault on science we’re seeing today is far worse than a hiccup.

Let’s start with the human element. Across the government, experts who keep the biomedical enterprise running smoothly are losing their jobs. That includes people who perform research themselves, people who run or oversee clinical trials, and people who help direct grant funding to scientists at other institutions. Already, thousands of jobs at science and health agencies have been slashed, with continued efforts threatening to get rid of even more.

Along the way, a number of valuable early-career training programs have been halted. Without them, fewer people will acquire the skills they need to become top-notch scientists or clinicians, and fewer people will find a path into careers where they could inspire a cure for cancer or a way to reverse the effects of climate change.

Scientific jobs haven’t been the only casualties. The Trump administration is also finding new ways to decimate the public funding that supports science. It began with an in-the-weeds change that went unnoticed by most consumers: a huge cut to “indirect costs.” Each grant that supports a research project includes money for the actual study (direct costs) as well as money to pay for the infrastructure needed to enable that study (indirect costs). The infrastructure costs pay for electricity and staff members and other key elements necessary for any project. Draconian cuts at the National Institutes of Health would reduce grant funding by billions of dollars; there’s a temporary injunction on the cuts as multiple lawsuits attempt to reverse the damage.

The latest target to slash funding has been grants and contracts that have already been approved. This is money previously allocated by the federal government — through agencies such as NIH, the USDA, the departments of energy and defense, the National Science Foundation, and others — with a contractual obligation to back it up. But in a shocking move, the government is now canceling hundreds of research grants that have already been issued. It’s pulling the plug on studies that are well underway and that could have generated useful results to improve our health.

In such an uncertain climate, scientists can’t conduct the kind of long-term planning that is essential for good research. Science doesn’t work in fits and starts. You can’t ask a plate of cells to wait patiently while you look for another funding source to get your power turned back on.

Last week, thousands of science advocates attended more than 30 “Stand Up for Science” rallies across the U.S. I went to the rally in New York City, where several scientists spoke to the crowd on a cold, blustery day. Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize winner and former director of the NIH who recently penned a blistering op-ed about “the executive branch … waging war on America’s scientific enterprise,” told a fired-up crowd that what’s going on is not normal, and it’s not helpful for bringing new discoveries to the world. AI expert Yann LeCun said that science had brought him to the U.S. from France decades ago; the current culture could have the opposite effect, preventing great minds from coming here or sending scientists from the U.S. to other countries in search of better opportunities.

If this assault on science continues, the worst part won’t be another round of job losses or a research program that’s cut off at the knees. The worst part is that, five or 10 or 20 years from now, we won’t have cures to diseases that should have happened. We won’t have the next vaccine platform, or obesity wonder drug, or a novel way to screen for cancer. The advances that should have happened — the ones being seeded today, the ones that could only happen with years of nurturing — will be delayed or will never materialize at all. Could doctors have cured the rare disease in your family, or in mine? We may never know just how many lives are lost to today’s dangerous and short-sighted cost-cutting spree. What we do know is that any harm that will happen as a result is 100 percent preventable.