Banner by Amy Zhang

The Silent Crisis in Medical Research

by Kailyn Laffredo

“We urge the administration to reconsider this self-defeating action.”

In a statement released by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), they address the recent developments, or lack thereof, in health care research funding. The APLU’s powerful words represent just one of thousands of organizations desperately calling to action after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a policy change notice on Feb. 7, 2025. The policy change, titled Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates, announced that following Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, the NIH’s updated policy will deviate from “the negotiated indirect cost rate for new grant awards and existing grant awards.”

Questions you may be asking: Who is the NIH? Why is it changing now? And why do I care?

The NIH is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world. Its mission is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”

This sounds like they are doing extremely important work—and they are.

Research conducted nationwide by universities, laboratories, clinics, and even communities rely on the significant financial contributions made by the NIH. Without NIH funding, groundbreaking medical research will stall, aspiring health care professionals will face diminished opportunities, and the future of scientific innovation will be at risk—threatening not just careers, but lives.

As stated by the organization, “NIH-funded research has led to breakthroughs and new treatments helping people live longer, healthier lives, and building the research foundation that drives discovery.”

The impact of the NIH runs deep, touching the lives of your local educators, scholars, and health care workers. Here at the University of Pittsburgh, we feel the impact of these policy changes and the fear it brings to the future of science education. Pitt receives nearly $700 million in NIH funding, making up more than half of its research budget. Chancellor Joan Gabel released a statement to the community highlighting the devastating reality of the matter: “A significant reduction of these funds will result in irreparable harm for University operations: for our patients who receive treatments and cures, the students who become their best selves on our campuses, and the people whose livelihoods depend on our innovation economy.”

Given the stakes and perceived fallout, a pressing question arises—why now?

With recent administration shifts, government priorities and budget allocations have been at the forefront of policy debates. The NIH attributes its policy change to the compliance of 45 CFR §75.414 and 45 CFR Appendix III to Part 75, which provides guidelines on cost principles for federal grants and agreements, particularly related to indirect costs. These are the funds required to run facilities and administrative costs, often shortened to F&A, for institutions receiving federal funding. Furthermore, they stated, “NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life.”

Contrary to the notion of benefiting the American people, the budget reduction limited indirect cost awards to a maximum of 15 percent, which will reportedly cut more than four billion dollars of NIH funding annually.

F&A costs are essential expenses that support the overall research environment but can’t be tied to a single project. These include salaries for administrative staff who assist with research-related tasks, such as IT and finance, utilities like electricity and water, building maintenance and rent for research spaces, library resources, and equipment depreciation. Eroding assistance to these finances will devastate many institutions, causing instability in research performance, innovation, job security, and education.

While discussions about NIH funding often remain confined to political and academic circles, its impact extends far beyond those sectors. Whether you’re a student pursuing a career in health care, a patient relying on the latest medical advances, or a policymaker shaping the future of science and medicine, the decisions made about NIH funding will directly affect you.

For University of Pittsburgh medical student Disha Satapathy, the impact of NIH funding is not just a policy debate—it’s a reality that shapes the future of health care. Through her experiences, she highlights how these funding decisions affect researchers and medical professionals—but also patients, students, and the broader community. From a young age, Satapathy knew that she wanted her career to foster a sense of wholeness and belonging. She planned to do so by contributing to the betterment of her community through medical innovation, thus creating a healthy and thriving area.

Satapathy exemplifies a dedication to shaping the future of health care. From providing medical aid to unhoused individuals through the Pittsburgh Street Medicine coalition to researching Epstein-Barr Virus in transplant patients, her work reflects the far-reaching impact of NIH funding on both patient care and scientific discovery.

During Satapathy’s testimony she says, “The sudden drop-off in NIH funding has led to a vast amount of uncertainty, ambiguity, and apprehension about the future of our projects.”

“I came to Pitt because it was in the top 10 recipients of NIH funding, and I knew that I wanted to prioritize my research as a medical student. It seems now, though, that our institution will no longer be able to move forward as pioneers within the field without the financial and material support of federally funded organizations like the NIH.” As a medical student and researcher, Satapathy observes firsthand how these funding cuts could hinder progress in addressing critical health challenges. Without sufficient resources, research efforts slow, delaying medical advancements and limiting the development of innovative treatments. “The very ethos of research, and what lies at the heart of medicine, is bringing new solutions from the bench to the bedside in order to heal pain,” she emphasizes. Without sustained NIH support, the ability to transform scientific discoveries into life-saving treatments is at risk.

Beyond the lab, she stresses the broader implications for future health care professionals and patients alike: “It’s crucial for medical students and the public to stay informed about shifts in science and health care policy because these changes directly affect research, clinical practice, and public health.” By understanding what's at stake, she believes, students and the public can advocate for policies that ensure continued medical innovation and equitable access to care.

The conversation surrounding NIH funding isn't just about research breakthroughs; it encompasses the political, educational, and deeply personal implications that shape the future of healthcare. Budget cuts could mean fewer opportunities for aspiring doctors and scientists, delayed advancements in medicine, and reduced access to cutting-edge treatments for patients in need. By bridging the gap between policy decisions and their tangible effects, it becomes clear why protecting research funding is crucial—not just for scientists, but for everyone.