Foundation for U.S. innovations appears more unstable to researchers

With every dollar allocated through its grants, the National Institutes of Health — the premier global financier of biomedical research — yields, on average, $2.56 in economic activity spanning all 50 states.

The funding leads to new medications, such as the naloxone spray designed to avert opioid overdoses, as well as advancements in fundamental science, like the relationship between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular health.

Additionally, NIH grants are responsible for sustaining over 400,000 U.S. positions and have played a vital role in asserting the nation’s preeminence in medical research. A recent study by Nature indicated that, in the realm of health sciences, U.S. research productivity surpasses that of the next 10 leading nations combined.

This dominance largely stems from federal support for research undertaken by educational institutions. According to statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, over the last thirty years, these universities have emerged, as a collective, as the preeminent center of non-commercial research globally.

Waves of grant terminations during the second Trump administration have raised doubts regarding that correlation — particularly endangering specific research areas. Harvard has contested the terminations in federal court. In July, officials confirmed they would cover 80 percent of anticipated costs so the majority of defunded projects within the University could proceed temporarily.

Nonetheless, this does not shield researchers from the trepidation accompanying what could be a transformative disruption. Another significant concern is the loss of time. Most impacted grants bolster initiatives that affect numerous human lives. Interruptions carry serious implications.

Walter Willett, the Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition and — by one estimate — Harvard’s most-cited scholar, expresses concern about maintaining biobanks with samples that may date back 45 years.

The longitudinal studies linked to these samples, encompassing research undertaken at Harvard and in Washington, offer insights by observing populations over extended periods. Therefore, an ill-timed loss of funding could create an irreparable void in the dataset or a question mark in lieu of a discovery.

As his funding diminished in May, Willett and his team began “scrambling to secure the samples and data we possess”: freezers filled with blood samples, DNA, and other biological substances. Willett confirmed that these samples remain protected this summer, thanks to temporary funding from the University. “But we still lack long-term solutions,” he remarked.

Among her four rescinded grants, Molly Franke, an epidemiologist and professor of global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, was especially concerned about a five-year randomized study tracking approximately 160 adolescents and young adults living with HIV in Peru. The research assesses a community-based support initiative that provides mental health assistance and healthcare personnel to help them enroll in insurance, acquire government IDs, and seek treatment.

Following the cancellation of the grant, that support network faced potential collapse. “It was heartbreaking,” she stated. “These young individuals often find themselves in extremely vulnerable social circumstances: They may lack stable adult figures; they grapple with mental health challenges, substance abuse, or severe poverty.”

Once University administrators pledged to uphold funding temporarily, researchers exhaled a slight breath of relief.

However, Franke will still need to seek alternative funding sources to ensure the successful conclusion of the Peru study. Her team endeavors to alleviate the burden of disease in remote areas because they believe “it’s the ethical thing to do,” she noted. But she emphasized that the work holds significant relevance for Americans as well.

“Infectious diseases have no boundaries,” Franke emphasized. “And when drug-resistant tuberculosis emerges in our country, we are able to treat it thanks to studies performed in other regions.”

During the spring of 2024, Kelsey Tyssowski — a research associate in organismic and evolutionary biology — secured a grant of $130,255 through the NIH’s BRAIN Initiative for her investigation into the nervous systems of deer mice, intending to illuminate ALS and other neurodegenerative conditions. (That may seem like a stretch, Tyssowski admitted, before pointing out that “the ability to move skillfully is often the first capability lost in various diseases.”)

However, like nearly all other governmental grants to Harvard, those funds were ultimately retracted in early May.

Over a span of 15 years
“““html

In laboratories, Tyssowski mentioned she has received financial support from government sources “more frequently than not.” Her most recent grant was intended to act as a bridge between her postdoctoral position in the lab of Hopi Hoekstra and a tenure-track faculty position, along with a dedicated laboratory, likely on a different campus.

“I might be the sole individual studying skilled movement from this perspective, right?” she remarked with a chuckle. “I aim to establish my own lab and teach others to engage in this research. If that doesn’t materialize, all the funding, time, and effort that have gone into bringing me to this stage will have been nearly entirely squandered.”

Parallel narratives are unfolding throughout Greater Boston and in other key research centers across the nation. Grant statistics from the NIH reveal that impacted researchers at Harvard were engaged in diverse medical fields, ranging from cancer immunotherapy and stem cell studies to environmental health initiatives.

However, researchers also emphasize that their efforts are not confined to laboratories on campus or within nearby hospitals.

At Harvard Medical School, the discontinuation of 350 grants — amounting to $230 million in yearly funding — has also resulted in the cancellation of over 100 “sub-awards.” These funds are distributed to partner institutions — in Harvard’s case, located in 23 states and Washington, D.C. — that may have better access to specific animal species or laboratory resources.

Jonathan Abraham, an associate professor of microbiology at HMS, received a grant to study mosquitoes in pursuit of a deeper understanding of Eastern equine encephalitis, or EEE. This grant included a sub-award for the University of Texas Medical Branch, known as the world’s largest repository of insect-borne viruses.

Simultaneously, Stephanie Mohr obtained a comparable sub-award for a team at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, focusing on tick biology with the goal of illuminating aspects of Lyme disease. They were only a few months into a five-year grant when the termination occurred.

The same is true for Franke’s research on HIV in young people, which included a sub-award to the Peruvian division of Partners In Health.

That research committed, she noted, not only to patients but also to the personnel hired to support them and to Peru’s Ministry of Health. The downfall of one grant had far-reaching implications, even thousands of miles away.

“It influences care, people’s livelihoods … and a trust that took two decades to build,” Franke expressed. “That was what kept me awake at night.”

“`