The White House’s Cuts To Scientific Research Will Cut Short American Lives
from the the-trump-death-cult dept
Nearly every modern medical treatment can be traced to research funded by the National Institutes of Health: from over-the-counter and prescription medications that treat high cholesterol and pain to protection from infectious diseases such as polio and smallpox.
The remarkable successes of the decades-old partnership between biomedical research institutions and the federal government are so intertwined with daily life that it’s easy to take them for granted.
However, the scientific work driving these medical advances and breakthroughs is in jeopardy. Federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are terminating hundreds of active research grants under the current administration’s direction. The administration has also proposed a dramatic reduction in federal support of the critical infrastructure that keeps labs open and running. Numerous scientists and health professionals have noted that changes will have far-reaching, harmful outcomes for the health and well-being of the American people.
The negative consequences of defunding U.S. biomedical research can be difficult to recognize. Most breakthroughs, from the basic science discoveries that reveal the causes of diseases to the development of effective treatments and cures, can take years. Real-time progress can be hard to measure.
As biomedical researchers studying infectious diseases, viruses and immunology, we and our colleagues see this firsthand in our own work. Thousands of ongoing national and international projects dedicated to uncovering the causes of life-threatening diseases and developing new treatments to improve and save lives are supported by federal agencies such as the NIH and NSF.
Considering a few of the breakthroughs made possible through U.S. federal support can help illustrate not only the significant inroads biomedical research has made for preventing, treating and curing human maladies, but what all Americans stand to lose if the U.S. reduces its investment in these endeavors.
A cure for cancer
The hope and dream of curing cancer unites many scientists, health professionals and affected families across the U.S. After decades of ongoing NIH-supported research, scientists have made significant progress in realizing this goal.
The National Cancer Institute of the NIH is the world’s largest funder of cancer research. This investment has led to advances in cancer treatment and prevention that helped reduce the overall U.S. cancer death rate by 33% from 1991 to 2021.
Basic science research on what causes cancer has led to new strategies to harness a patient’s own immune system to eliminate tumors. For example, all 12 patients in a 2022 clinical trial testing one type of immunotherapy had their rectal cancer completely disappear, without remission or adverse effects.
Another example of progress is the 2024 results of an ongoing clinical trial of a targeted therapy for lung cancer, showing an 84% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. Similarly, in a study of women who were immunized against the human papillomavirus at age 12 or 13, none developed the disease later. Since the widespread adoption of HPV vaccination, cervical cancer deaths have dropped 62%.
Despite these incredible successes, there is still a long way to go. In 2024, over 2 million people in the U.S. were estimated to be newly diagnosed with cancer, and 611,720 were expected to die from the disease.
Without sustained federal support for cancer research, progress toward curing cancer and reducing its death rate will stall.
Autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases
Nearly every family is touched in some way by autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. Government-funded research has enabled major advances to combat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.
For example, approximately 1 in 5 Americans have arthritis, an autoimmune disease that causes joint swelling and stiffness. A leading cause of disability and economic costs in the U.S., there is no cure for arthritis. But new drugs in development are able to significantly improve symptoms and slow or prevent disease progression.
Researchers are also gaining insight into what causes multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease where the immune system attacks the protective covering of nerves and can result in paralysis. Scientists recently found a link between multiple sclerosis and Epstein-Barr virus, a pathogen estimated to infect over 90% of adults around the world. While multiple sclerosis is currently incurable, identifying its underlying cause can provide new avenues for prevention and treatment.

Alzheimer’s disease causes irreversible nerve damage and is the leading cause of dementia. In 2024, 6.9 million Americans ages 65 and older were living with Alzheimer’s. Most treatments address cognitive and behavioral symptoms. However, two new drugs developed with NIH-supported research and clinical trials were approved in July 2023 and July 2024 to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s. Federal funding is also supporting the development of blood tests for earlier detection of the disease.
None of these breakthroughs are a cure. But they represent important steps forward on the path toward ultimately reducing or eliminating these devastating ailments. Lack of funding will slow or block further progress, leading to the continued rise of the incidence and severity of these conditions.
Infectious diseases and the next pandemic
The world’s capacity to combat infectious disease will also be weakened by cuts to U.S. federal support of biomedical research.
Over the past 50 years, medical and public health advances have led to the eradication of smallpox globally and the elimination of polio in the U.S. HIV/AIDS, once a death sentence, is now a disease that can be managed with medication. Moreover, a new version of treatments called preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, offers complete protection against HIV transmission when taken only twice per year.
Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the critical role biomedical research plays in responding to public health threats. Increased federal support of science during this time allowed the United States to emerge with new drugs, vaccine platforms with the potential to treat a variety of chronic diseases, and insights on how to effectively detect and respond to pandemic threats.
The ongoing avian influenza outbreak and its spillover into American dairy herds and poultry farms is another pandemic threat looming on the horizon. Rather than build upon infrastructure for outbreak surveillance and preparedness, grants that would allow scientists to better understand long COVID-19, vaccines and other pandemic-related research are being cut. Decreased funding of biomedical research will hamper the U.S.’s ability to respond to the next pandemic, putting everyone at risk.
Losses from defunding biomedical research
The National Institutes of Health contributed over $100 billion to support research that ultimately led to the development of all new drugs approved from 2010 to 2016 alone. Over 90% of this funding was for basic research into understanding the causes of disease that provides the foundation for new treatments.
Under the new directive to eliminate projects that support or use terms associated with diversity, equity and inclusion, the NIH and other federal agencies have made deep cuts to biomedical research that will directly affect patient lives.
Already, nearly 41% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime, and nearly 11% with Alzheimer’s. About 1 in 5 Americans will die from heart disease, and nearly 1.4 million will be rushed to an emergency room due to pneumonia from an infectious disease.
Defunding biomedical research will result in a cascade of effects. There will likely be fewer clinical trials, fewer new treatments and fewer lifesaving drugs. Labs will likely shut down, jobs will be lost, and the process of discovery will stall. The U.S.’s health care system, economy and standing as the world’s leader in scientific innovation will likely decline.
Moreover, when the pipelines of scientific progress are turned off, they will not so easily be turned back on. These consequences will affect all Americans and the rest of the world for decades.
University shortfalls directly resulting from cuts to research support will dramatically reduce the capacity of American institutions to educate and provide opportunities for the next generation. Funding cuts have led to the shuttering or heavy reduction of training programs for future scientists.
Graduate students and postdoctoral trainees are the lifeblood of biomedical research. Supporting these young people committed to public service through research and health care is also an investment in medical advancements and public health. But the uncertainty and instability resulting from the divestment of federally funded programs will likely severely deplete the biomedical workforce, crippling the United States’ ability to deliver future biomedical breakthroughs.
By cutting biomedical research funding, Americans and the rest of the world stand to lose new cures, new treatments and an entire generation of researchers.
Deborah Fuller is Professor of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington and Patrick Mitchell is Assistant Professor of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
![]()
Filed Under: biomedicine, cancer, diseases, grants, health, immunology, infectious diseases, medical research, nih, nsf, pandemics, viruses


Comments on “The White House’s Cuts To Scientific Research Will Cut Short American Lives”
Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the critical role biomedical research plays in responding to public health threats. Increased federal support of science during this time allowed the United States to emerge with new drugs
As you stated prior to this quote, takes years to develop and test new vaccines. Hence the resistance to covid vaccine.
Instead of the public paying twice or more for research to develop one drug, how about we end never ending drug patents.
Let the pharmaceutical companies pay for the research they already claim to be paying.
Re:
It normally takes years to develop vaccines because they’re usually for diseases affecting poor people in poor countries (for example malaria).
So the research is funded by public institutions using scarce tax money.
Once a disease such as COVID risks affecting people in rich Western countries virtually unlimited funds suddenly become available. This vastly shortens the timescales.
If COVID had stayed confined to China we’d still be waiting for a vaccine or other treatment.
This is the desired outcome
A population that’s sick and dying, a population under economic duress because it’s sick and dying, a population that’s constantly stressed because it’s sick and dying…will be busy sick and dying and lack the time, energy, and resources for other things, thus making them far easier to control.
And absolute control is the goal. It doesn’t matter how many tens of millions die, in fact that’s a feature, not a bug.
We are going to live (or not) to see the largest exercise in mass murder in human history.
Re:
…and because nobody knows what the fuck’s gonna happen after the next election. There’s no stability. One president will promise to improve things, the next will promise to undo all of that.
Will you still have a job? Health care? Will you be arrested for looking too foreign?
On the plus side
What use is a long life if you cannot enjoy it? The Trump administration has also removed treatments for obesity from coverage of several programs, and those made life unfun by supervision or by drugs that caused intake of foods to feel less gratifying.
So America is on a good path to keep the Sumo wrestling world championship title.
There is nothing Mango can’t fuck up and Republicans should be treated like traitors to the US.
Re:
Things that should but won’t happen.
At best it’ll be about 6-7 years later before the DNC gives him the W and Cheney “Oh they were just misunderstood, we shouldn’t resent them forever!” treatment.
Re: Re:
I wish them fucking luck with this. Not all of America are little Fox idiots.
Re: Re: Re:
They already told one of their colleagues who dared to actually do more than pretend to be at a silent auction to sit down and shut up.
It’s absolutely guaranteed the DNC will downplay just how much of a disaster Trump was if it survives him. They are actively enabling him right now while he’s live on air smearing his own own shit on the walls and telling everyone it was actually their fault.
Re: Re: Re:
Not yet, but that’s clearly the endgame. Why do you think the Department of Education is being dismantled?
I believe the biggest losers are the US and citizens. There are other countries and groups quite ready to take the US place, Donald is just handing the country vanguard and advantageous position where they have it wrapped in papers with pretty patterns and a big red ribbon. If things keep escalating and he keeps shredding sanitary and protective measures built over decades of scientific advances and consensus the country will just end up being some sort of pariah, isolated.
It’s past time the US ejects the orange dumbass and his entourage.
Re: Longer-term effects
Canada had long complained of a “brain drain”, in which Canadians and foreign students would attend government-subsidized Canadian universities. Then, after graduation, they’d move to the U.S.A., on account of it having much higher salaries than Canada, and Canada would miss out on the tax revenue.
The Republicans need to move against Trump, and quickly, because if people expect funding to only be good till the next election—if the U.S.A. flip-flops between pro-whatever and anti-whatever positions every 4 years—nobody’s gonna want to “invest”, in any sense, even during the good years. Trust, once lost, will be very hard to re-gain, and this is way worse than what anyone expected based on Trump’s previous term.
Canada’s already announced plans to lure the fired American scientists and engineers, who are curing cancer, working on climate, and whatnot. European countries have gotta be seeing that opportunity too. Many have long offered free university, sometimes in English, to Americans and other foreigners, and I imagine they’ll soon be doubling down on advertising that; historically, it hasn’t been well known. But who’d want to pay American school prices when jobs might not exist by graduation? (Hell, America as we know it might not exist by graduation. There have always been fringe secessionist movements, which are likely to become more mainstream and maybe eventually successful—leaving an ever-shrinking “Trumpland”.)
Re: US in a few years: 'I don't get it, why are NONE of the medical breakthroughs in the US anymore?'
Were I in any position of authority in basically any government with a shred of sense I would be actively sending out recruitment offers to medical researchers and other experts that are being canned in the US offering not only to pay their moving fees to move to my country but offering them well funded replacement jobs.
Re: Re:
This is already happening in the EU. Universities in France, Sweden and Belgium are setting up special fund plans to attract scientists and researchers, and the European Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, has spoken on the importance of securing research rights.
Apparently, the size of research grants has also been increased.
Re: Re: Re:
Let’s not forget that the U.S.A. “rolled out the welcome mat” in World War 2, which is a major reason they’ve done so well in science and engineering (and been able to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in university tuition). Back then, the U.S. was a politically stable place, locally peaceful, that put a high value on education; Europe was a divided place with frequent wars. Now, the E.U. can pretty much run the same campaign in reverse.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, sucks for the US but it’s good that at least someone out there recognizes the value of both skilled researchers and experts and what they can bring to a country.
That’s certainly because Trump is sick to heard from doctors that he needs to be treated for the big tumor in his head that had replaced its brain for so long.
This is a feature, not a bug. They want to churn through a few generations of people. They want disposable human capital run through the bare minimum education and herded into serfdom. We’re all interchangeable widgets to them.
Don’t worry, the pruvate sector will step in, american companies will boost their R&D budgets and train the best and brightest… Oh wait, that’s not how it works, that is never how it works when there’s a hole left by attacks on the public sector and privatisation. America’s not going to be able to plug the gap by attracting foreign students and talent, not after a few years of armed men in black kidnapping students for the crimes of having an opinion that is deemed bad by the state.
Still waiting for the free speech champions of the right here to defend or criticise that, by the way.
'We cannot afford medical research, but we can ALWAYS afford tax breaks!'
Trump Regime: The US cannot afford to be wasting all this money on taxpayer funded medical research!
Also Trump Regime: Well of course the country can afford to pass a trillion-dollar plus tax break on the wealthiest members of society!
Re:
Plus the military parade he’s planning for his birthday.
Re: Re: A parade filled to the brim with 'Suckers and losers'
Well of course, a very visible display of military might to impress/cow the peasants is damn near required in a proper dictatorship and as such there’s no costs too high for something like that.
Stop them already.
If your counter argument to NIH cuts being a dangerous to public health is that the free market can do it better, consider this…
Goldman Sacks just put out a paper about investing in targeted gene therapy to cure diseases asking the question “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”
If the answer is “no” for any given disease, then the free market is not going to step in to do it.
This is certainly part of the plan to cause the US to immediately begin producing all the things for which we normally outsource or trade.
Re:
And when high tariffs cause cessation of imports into the US of manufacturing materials not available on American land, what then?
Hopefully, Trump’s, Musk’s, and RFK Jr.’s lives are first, then maybe we can begin to reverse the enshittification of American public policy.