ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to investigating abuses of power, has highlighted a troubling trend within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a key player in global biomedical research funding. With over $30 billion in annual grants, the NIH facilitates crucial medical advancements across a multitude of fields. However, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, the NIH has terminated more than 1,450 grants, an unprecedented move that has drawn significant criticism from the scientific community.
Historically, the NIH rarely revokes funding, having terminated fewer than five grants for violations of agency policies since 2012. Yet, following President Trump’s inauguration, his administration has taken drastic steps to cut what he termed as “wasteful spending” and “unscientific” research. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including Andrew G. Nixon, have defended these actions, stating they aim to redirect taxpayer dollars towards projects that deliver high-impact results.
The consequences of these terminations have reverberated throughout the scientific community, with many researchers expressing alarm at the implications for ongoing studies. Research that sought to address critical health issues such as pandemics, dementia, and even HIV prevention has been abruptly halted, raising concerns about the future stability of the NIH and the broader scientific infrastructure in the United States.
A recent declaration signed by hundreds of NIH employees and thousands of international scientists, including over 20 Nobel laureates, condemns the politicization of science and urges the reinstatement of terminated grants. Many researchers have begun to formally appeal the terminations, and legal action is being pursued to challenge the cuts.
To understand the gravity of this situation, ProPublica contacted more than 500 affected researchers, gathering accounts that illustrate the devastating impact of these funding cuts. Among those who responded, a striking narrative emerged of wasted resources, discontinued projects, and lost opportunities for scientific inquiry.
Researchers reported not only impediments to producing publishable results but also the concern that their work would result in unusable or lost data. For instance, projects aimed at tackling health disparities — once viewed as essential to medical progress — have now come under scrutiny if they relate to concepts of diversity or equity. Such cuts have affected critical research on issues like stillbirth prevention, child suicides, and mental health conditions in disadvantaged populations.
Among the terminated grants was a project designed to improve participant recruitment for clinical trials focused on Alzheimer’s disease. Additionally, research aiming to investigate the long-term effects of in-utero exposure to contaminants in drinking water was abruptly halted. Another study was examining the consequences of abortion restrictions, led by demographer Diana Greene Foster at the University of California, San Francisco.
Foster aimed to investigate the real-world outcomes for patients facing obstacles in accessing abortion care, particularly after the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn previous protections. Despite her initial findings, which highlighted rising rates of second-trimester abortions due to legislative bans, her grant was terminated for being misaligned with NIH priorities, which she perceives as politically motivated.
The fallout extends to patient studies, jeopardizing critical clinical trials that rely on human subjects to test novel treatments. Terminating grants mid-study not only disrupts ongoing research but also may exacerbate the health risks for participating patients, leading to potentially dire outcomes.
For example, a network led by Brown University researchers sought to provide comprehensive care to reduce the risk of HIV transmission among high-risk populations. They were in the process of collecting data on the efficacy of their intervention when their funding was unexpectedly cut, leaving them unable to continue their critical work. Experts worry that the abrupt cessation of clinical trials may endanger numerous participants, potentially worsening their health conditions.
Moreover, the NIH’s prohibition against funding research with any perceived emphasis on diversity, equity, or inclusion has resulted in the termination of over 550 grants related to health disparities. Projects aiming to unravel why specific groups experience poorer health outcomes, such as maternal health studies concerning Black women or investigations into the high rates of cervical cancer among women of color, have faced the axe.
As a testament to the importance of this research, epidemiologist Adana Llanos at Weill Cornell Medicine emphasized that their findings on cervical cancer care disparities could ultimately benefit all women, regardless of their background. Her study, aimed at tracking and improving cancer outcomes for women diagnosed with cervical cancer, was cut short after significant community engagement and enrollment of participants.
The NIH’s actions have particularly impacted studies focused on LGBTQ+ health, with hundreds of grants cut for allegedly supporting “gender ideology.” Lauren Forrest, an assistant professor at the University of Oregon, found herself grappling with the cancellation of her grant aimed at understanding and preventing suicide among LGBTQ+ youth living in rural areas. Forrest’s apprehensions echo the sentiments of many researchers who feel that decisions regarding grant terminations are driven by political considerations rather than scientific merit.
The broader implications of these terminations are causing many young researchers to reconsider their futures in the United States. With universities scaling back investments in graduate programs, the potential loss of a generation of scientists looms as established pipelines for emerging researchers have begun to dwindle.
Dr. Lauren Harasymiw, whose funding for the Pediatric Scientist Development Program was terminated, described the cut as an uprooting of her career foundations. As NIH officials cite prioritization of impactful research over so-called “low-yield programs,” Harasymiw and others fear that the fallout will hinder future generations from pursuing essential scientific inquiries.
The story of NIH’s grant terminations illustrates a complex and troubling intersection of politics and science that has drawn backlash from researchers both domestically and internationally. As science and research are increasingly subjected to political whims, the repercussions for public health and safety loom larger than ever. ProPublica invites individuals affected by the terminated grants to share their experiences, reinforcing the pressing nature of this issue in contemporary biomedical research.
Through cataloging the narratives of researchers and their interrupted work, the troubling reality of governmental interference in science emerges, leaving many to ponder the future of medical advancement amidst growing societal needs.
image source from：https://projects.propublica.org/nih-cuts-research-lost-trump/
