NIH Funding Changes Disrupt Research, Scientists Say in New Survey

The fallout from a policy shift at the National Institutes of Health is rippling through American research labs, disrupting studies and forcing scientists to alter projects, according to a new nationwide survey. The policy, enacted ten months ago, prevents U.S. Researchers from sharing federal grant money with international collaborators – a practice known as foreign subawards. While intended to increase accountability and transparency in the spending of $47 billion in biomedical funding, the move has created significant hurdles for scientists pursuing research that relies on global partnerships.

The survey, conducted by STAT News and the MassINC Polling Group, found that 25% of nearly 1,000 NIH-supported scientists reported their research had been significantly impacted by the change, with an additional 20% experiencing some degree of disruption. The policy’s impact extends beyond logistical challenges; it’s forcing tricky choices about research direction and, in some cases, threatening ongoing projects.

A Shift in Funding, a Shift in Focus

Andres Vidal-Gadea, a molecular neuroethologist at Illinois State University, experienced this disruption firsthand. His research focuses on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder affecting approximately 1 in 3,500 male births. Vidal-Gadea’s lab uses nematodes – tiny worms – to study the disease, but was poised to expand his work to mice, a step often necessary to translate findings into potential human trials. He’d identified collaborators in the Netherlands with the necessary resources and expertise, and grant proposals were underway when the NIH policy took effect. “This entire thing kind of fell through,” Vidal-Gadea said.

The core of the issue lies in the way international collaborations were previously funded. Foreign subawards allowed U.S. Researchers to allocate portions of their NIH grants to institutions abroad, facilitating access to unique resources, patient populations, or specialized techniques. This was particularly crucial for global health research, infectious disease studies, and clinical trials involving rare conditions. Now, researchers must navigate a new system – dubbed PF5 by the NIH – which involves separate, linked awards to foreign partners, increasing administrative complexity and potentially slowing down the pace of discovery.

Impact on Critical Research Areas

The consequences are being felt across a range of research areas. Christopher Sassetti, a tuberculosis researcher at UMass Chan Medical School, has been forced to alter his approach to studying the disease. As STAT News reported, Sassetti’s work relies on analyzing blood samples from individuals in Lima, Peru, who possess a unique immune gene. The ban on subawards has forced him to shift to using genetically engineered cell lines and non-human primates, which he acknowledges are less representative of human immune responses. “It fulfills the aims of the grant, but I wouldn’t say are quite as scientifically compelling as a human cohort,” he said.

Similar disruptions are occurring in malaria research, where scientists have relied on international partnerships to study the disease in endemic regions. One researcher, speaking anonymously to STAT, described how bridge funding from their university and a philanthropic foundation was essential to continue a study of children with malaria in Africa after their NIH subaward was halted. The new PF5 system, while intended to provide a pathway forward, has been plagued by delays, exacerbated by staffing shortages at the NIH following mass firings last year. These layoffs have further complicated the grant application and review process.

The FlyBase Example: A Cautionary Tale

The impact extends beyond clinical research. FlyBase, an online database of the fruit fly genome – a crucial resource for studying human genetics – has as well been affected. A grant supporting the international consortium maintaining FlyBase was temporarily frozen due to the NIH policy, leading to layoffs and a scramble for alternative funding. While the grant was eventually restored, support for the University of Cambridge team responsible for updating the database with new genetic information was removed. Now, the consortium is seeking contributions from the wider research community to maintain this vital resource.

Navigating the New System: PF5 and Beyond

The NIH has responded to the criticism by outlining the PF5 mechanism, which involves issuing primary awards to U.S. Institutions and separate, linked awards to foreign partners. The agency argues that this approach will strengthen accountability and oversight, providing a clearer picture of how federal funds are being spent. However, researchers express concerns that the new system adds administrative burden and reduces their control over international collaborations. “From my point of view… it really removes my ability… to adjust the budget or hold the foreign site scientifically accountable,” Sassetti explained.

Applications under the PF5 mechanism are now being accepted, but the transition has been far from seamless. Researchers face increased paperwork, longer application timelines, and the need for international partners to register with the NIH – a process that can take weeks. The NIH maintains that the PF5 system is designed to support all types of international collaborations, but its complexity raises questions about its practicality and potential to stifle innovation.

A Broader Impact on the Scientific Community

Beyond the immediate disruptions to research projects, the NIH policy has broader implications for the scientific community. Vidal-Gadea, a first-generation immigrant who became a U.S. Citizen last week, expressed concern about the message the policy sends to international scientists and collaborators. He emphasized the importance of global collaboration in addressing complex scientific challenges. “It’s clear we have a monumental task ahead,” he said, “But Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a monumental task as well, and we have not shied away from it.”

The situation highlights the delicate balance between national security concerns, the need for transparency in federal spending, and the importance of fostering international scientific cooperation. As the NIH continues to refine the PF5 mechanism and address the concerns of researchers, the future of global collaborations in biomedical research remains uncertain. The agency’s spokesperson stated, “The American people deserve transparency and accountability in how their tax dollars are spent… while preserving the ability of recipients and investigators to conduct international scientific collaboration.” Whether this balance can be struck effectively will determine the trajectory of scientific progress in the years to reach.

STAT’s coverage of the federal government’s impact on the biomedical workforce is supported by a grant from the Dana Foundation and the Boston Foundation.