WASHINGTON Rural cancer patients may miss out on cutting-edge treatments in Utah. Therapies for intellectual disorders could stall in Maryland. Red states and blue states alike are poised to lose jobs in research labs and the local businesses serving them.
Ripple effects of the Trump administrations crackdown on U.S. biomedical research promise to reach every corner of America. Its not just about scientists losing their jobs or damaging the local economy their work indirectly supports scientists around the country say its about patient health.
Discoveries are going to be delayed, if they ever happen, said Dr. Kimryn Rathmell, former director of the National Cancer Institute.
Its hard for patients to comprehend how they could lose an undiscovered cure.
Yet all the people out there who have, you know, sick parents, sick children, this is going to impact, said neuroscientist Richard Huganir of Johns Hopkins University.
The administrations unprecedented moves are upending the research engine that has made the U.S. the envy of the world in terms of scientific innovation, said Georgetown University health policy expert Lawrence Gostin.
Among the biggest blows, if it survives a court challenge: Massive cuts in funding from the National Institutes of Health that would cost jobs in every state, according to an analysis by The Associated Press with assistance from the nonprofit United for Medical Research.
Thats on top of mass firings of government workers, NIH delays in issuing grants and uncertainty about how many already funded studies are being canceled under the presidents anti-diversity executive orders.
Earlier this week, lawmakers pressured Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the nominee to become NIH director, about the turmoil. Bhattacharya said if confirmed, hed look into it to ensure scientists employed by and funded by the agency have resources to do the lifesaving work they do.
Patients who live in rural counties are 10% more likely to die of their cancer than those living in metropolitan areas, said Neli Ulrich of the University of Utahs Huntsman Cancer Institute.
A third of patients travel more than 150 miles for care at the Salt Lake City cancer center. But for patients even further away in Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming its also the regional hub for NIH-funded studies of new treatments.
So Ulrichs center helps train local doctors to do at least some of the blood tests and other steps of clinical trials that let patients from far away participate without traveling a program threatened if her university loses tens of millions in NIH cuts.
The issue: Most of the NIHs budget more than $35 billion a year goes to universities, hospitals and other research groups. The grants are divided into direct costs covering researchers salaries and a projects supplies and indirect costs, to reimburse other expenses supporting the work such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight.
NIH directly negotiates with research groups, a process that grants managers say requires receipts and audits, to set rates for those indirect expenses that can reach 50% or more. But the Trump administration now plans to cap those rates at 15%. The administration estimates it would save the government $4 billion a year but scientists say it really means theyll have to stop some lifesaving work.
They are real expenses, thats the critical point they are not fluff, said Ulrich. Using separate cancer center funds to cover those costs would threaten other activities that are really important to us in serving our communities across the mountain West.
Leave a Reply