A push by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to slash funding for “indirect” research costs like lab equipment and computers could delay or end lifesaving medical studies all over the country, scientists say.
“These funds keep the lights on — literally and figuratively,” says Harlan Krumholz, MD, a professor and the director of the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at the Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
These funds pay for things like lab space, compliance with regulations, IT infrastructure, administrative support, and expenses required for maintaining a safe and functional research environment, Dr. Krumholz says. Without these funds, research would grind to a halt.
“It would be like giving funding for cars and drivers, but not for the roads. Or for planes and pilots, but not for the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] or airports,” Krumholz says. “It’s not excess — it’s essential.”
How the NIH Funds Critical Research
Typically, these grants earmark 27 to 28 percent of funds for indirect costs, the NIH said. Some grants, however, set aside more than 60 percent of funds for indirect costs. Going forward, the NIH said it will cap indirect costs at 15 percent of grant funds.
The Courts Have Halted the Cuts — for Now
“Right now, it is causing distraction and despair, in the context of so many attacks on NIH,” says Theodore Iwashyna, MD, PhD, an intensive care doctor and a professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “Some of my staff and some younger trainees have asked, ‘Should I be looking for another job?’”
The costs the NIH is trying to cut over cover supplies that can be used on multiple research projects — spending that actually saves money in the long run, Dr. Iwashyna says.
“Computers are indirect costs. They are essential for research, but don’t get used up,” Iwashyna says. “Research office space, lab space, staplers, libraries — all of these are not specific to only a single project, so they are covered under indirect costs.”
If the research cuts are implemented, “it will be devastating,” Iwashyna says. “Cutting indirect costs like this means making lots of research impossible. So my children and grandchildren will be sicker and die sooner, because discoveries will not be made, and the biomed-fueled economy so important in so many places will fall apart.”
Indirect Costs Allow for Efficient Use of Resources
Nora Becker, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, studies women’s health, reproductive health, and chronic disease management. She works with massive data sets that can’t be analyzed on a regular computer.
“One option would be for me and everyone who wants to work with similar data to each buy an incredibly expensive high-performance computer,” Dr. Becker says. “But each of those expensive computers would only be usable by one researcher. So instead, my university takes indirect funds from grants and funds a university-wide high-performance server — a shared resource that all faculty and staff can use.”
Sharing resources enables more efficient use of grant funds and enables more research overall to get completed, Becker says.
NIH Funding Has Saved Countless Lives
Many advances in medicine like the ones that have already transformed countless lives will not be possible if the NIH drastically reduces research funding. NIH funds have helped fight everything from cancer and HIV to diabetes and obesity.
“Thirty years ago, HIV was the leading cause of death among men [ages 25 to 44] in the United States,” Becker says. “Now it’s a treatable chronic disease with almost normal life expectancy.”
Cancers that were previously deadly now have effective treatments with excellent survival odds, Becker adds.
As for diabetes and obesity, “When I was a medical student, drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic didn’t exist,” Becker says. “Now they’re first-line treatments.”
NIH funding is the reason the United States is the world leader in scientific and medical innovation and discovery, Becker says. If the NIH goes ahead with slashing grant funds for indirect costs, “research will stop, new discoveries will not be made, and more people will die,” Becker says.