((The hill) – The efforts of the Trump administration to drastically reduce the federal government’s investments in medical research are threatening to kneel crucial research institutions and suppress scientific advances in combating chronic diseases.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last week that the amount of funds for indirect funds intended for administrative and furnishing costs limits to 15 percent. During this step stopped by a federal judgeMedical researchers from the university fear that their work could soon come to a standstill.
Richard Huganir, Bloomberg at John’s Hopkins University at Johns Hopkins University, has been working on projects that are financed by the NIH for more than two decades.
“What would have happened if the cut had happened to 15 percent [to indirect costs] Was a reality – which would basically mean that science and universities would not be viable, ”said Huganir. “The students, the post -doctoral students who start their career are incredibly concerned and annoyed that they may not have a career, and so there is a lot of effects at this level.”
According to Huganir, NIH financing covers around 70 percent of research in the United States. The rest is treated by philanthropy and other federal authorities such as the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. If federal dollars are cut off or greatly reduced, he said that the scientific community “has no way of recovering”.
The indirect costs that aim through these financing cuts include heating, furnishing fees, cleaning and financial management as well as the employment of students and support employees.
The 22 Attorney General who submitted the lawsuit in which you requested an injunction for the lawsuit of the NIH requested to create investment and partnership options with the private sector. “
Even some Republicans have grounded the alarm about the potential effects when the NIH financing is reduced.
“An intelligent, targeted approach is necessary to not hinder the life-saving, groundbreaking research at top-class institutions such as those in Alabama,” Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) Told Al.com.
And it is not straightforward that these universities and institutions depend on the NIH. The Federal Government is based on the work that scientists lead.
“The government needs this information because at the end of the day we need to know how we can look after people better how we can reduce the probability of chronic diseases,” said Keri Althoff, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, compared to The Hill .
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wants to become President Donald Trump’s health and health secretary this week, has given chronic diseases in the USA as his top priority. According to reports, he said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of the few Republicans, who expressed doubts about his nomination that he “checked” the NIH cuts and received her voice.
The relationship between the NIH and the researchers, which is advantageous for both sides, made it possible for the United States to become the leadership in biomedical research worldwide. If the current work rate in the USA decreases significantly, China would expand its importance on the global stage.
“The scientific budgets in Europe are by no means as far as in the United States,” said Huganir. “Japan [does] High quality research, but it is nothing compared to the amount we do. ”
“China is expanding enormously in science,” he added. “The Chinese government really invests in science in a very great way … they have now become a remarkable competitor.”
Proponents have warned that the patients lose the most through reduced US research.
Lisa Lacasse, President of the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society, spoke out against the step to reduce funding on Tuesday and warned that the restrictions on research activities and the reduction of the federal workers would have an “undeniable influence on the fight against cancer” .
“When these changes are implemented, cancer patients lose access to innovative treatments and clinical studies, and the United States will lose their global competitive advantage in biomedical research,” said Lacasse.
The White House criticized the “hysteria” in response to the NIH cuts and argues that it is trying to reduce waste in the research area.
“In contrast to the hysteria, the billions of assigned NIH editions outside of administrative tracks, this means that more money and resources are available for legitimate scientific research,” said Kush Desai, spokesman for the White House.
“The Trump administration is committed to reducing household sectors built up by the waste, fraud and abuse in our mammoth government and at the same time prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans.”
However, Algthoff at John’s Hopkins said that there are already “many reviews of all this information that we have to provide to the Federal Government to show that we can successfully do this work.”
“We do it because we believe in this mission to return this important information that we find to improve the health of the Americans,” she added.
