Science Cuts Are a Gamble With Our Health, Our Economy, and Our Future

In San Francisco and throughout the United States, scientific progress is in limbo as researchers wait with frustration to learn whether steep cuts to government funding will take effect.

And it couldn’t come at a worse time for patients—or our economy.

Biomedical researchers today have a greater ability than ever before to eliminate human disease and suffering. With advances in AI, stem cell science, gene editing, and other modern technologies, we’re at the cusp of preventing and curing diseases in ways that were unimaginable in the past.

But to move these breakthroughs beyond the cusp, we need reliable government funding. For the past 80 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been the driving force of this funding, providing grants that result, time and again, in discoveries that improve and extend our lives.

Today, this model is in jeopardy. Which means health innovation is in jeopardy.

The Cost of Uncertainty

The NIH announced plans in early February to dramatically slash grant funding in the form of an arbitrary cap on infrastructure costs at universities and research institutes. This funding normally covers things like laboratory space and maintenance, electricity, IT services, and compliance staff, all of which are absolutely essential to conduct research.

The cuts amount to billions of dollars collectively and would translate into budget shortfalls in the tens of millions of dollars for many of the 2,500 NIH-funded research organizations in the U.S. The revised funding levels wouldn’t come close to supporting the true cost of critical investigation into the cause and treatment of human diseases—throttling the potential for critical life-saving research.

Deepak Srivastava, MD, president of Gladstone Institutes

A federal judge ordered a permanent injunction against the policy in early April, blocking the cuts for now—but also setting the stage for the Trump administration to file an appeal. It can be months or more before we know how NIH research funding will be affected. Will we be able to continue accelerating toward new cures or will we be forced to decelerate at just the wrong time?

In the meantime, the waiting enacts its own damage. University of California, the largest NIH grantee in the state, has implemented a system-wide hiring freeze, citing the uncertainty and severity of potential cuts. Other major research organizations are following suit, holding off on key hires and putting important scientific programs on pause.

And all of this is already damaging our pipeline of scientific talent, as many graduate programs stop accepting new students and the most promising minds choose a more secure career path.

Far-Reaching Impact

Of course, implications of such drastic funding cuts extend far beyond the walls of scientific institutions.

It’s no secret that discoveries made at NIH-funded labs spawn innovative new medicines and products that biotech and pharma companies further develop and commercialize. In the Bay Area, a global hub for biomedical innovation, the life sciences industry employs 156,454 workers and contributes to $142.7 billion in economic output. NIH cuts will trigger a domino effect and will almost certainly result in broader job losses and economic stagnation.

But I worry most about repercussions for patients.

At Gladstone, we’re working on humankind’s most devastating diseases, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, heart failure, cancer, and deadly viruses. And our NIH-supported research directly translates to therapies for patients in need.

Our scientists discovered an anti-clotting drug that revolutionized treatment for heart attacks, led a global study resulting in FDA approval of the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP) drug Truvada, and developed spinoff biotech companies with therapeutic candidates now in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease and heart failure.

In the past decade alone, we’ve launched 16 biotech companies that leverage Gladstone technology—backed by nearly $2.5 billion in private and public financing. Yet, the NIH’s decision jeopardizes the very infrastructure that makes such progress possible.

Although science is a long-term pursuit, we work with an extreme sense of urgency, knowing that millions of patients are awaiting better therapies. Every day spent not working as fast as possible is a day where more people suffer, or die.

What Responsibility Looks Like

If the federal government wants true fiscal responsibility, it must invest wisely in the future. The U.S. as a whole spends nearly $5 trillion annually on healthcare—about $2 trillion of which the federal government spends (using our tax dollars) on health services and programs for Americans. The best way to bend the cost curve and reduce our country’s growing budget deficit is through innovations that result in a healthier population.

Imagine a world without the devastating consequences of Alzheimer’s, the high cost of cancer therapies, and the lost productivity of life-long chronic disease. Scientific research is not merely an expense; it’s an investment in our health, our economy, and our future.

It’s also a matter of national security. At a time when other nations are aggressively pursuing biomedical advancements, the U.S. cannot afford to retreat. For decades, we’ve led the world in scientific innovation. We’ve developed the leading companies of the world, many of which are here in San Francisco, by commercializing American discoveries.

We can’t risk sacrificing our nation’s leadership in biomedical innovation for the sake of misguided cost-cutting measures—and especially not now, when we’re poised to make the biggest breakthroughs in human history. Our research should be a source of national pride and economic gain.

As we wait to learn the ultimate outcome of the NIH’s funding cut proposal, Gladstone, and research institutes everywhere, are holding off on important decisions that impact our ability to move forward at full force with important discoveries.

We must urge the NIH to reconsider its decision and recognize the true cost of undermining the infrastructure of scientific discovery. The health and well-being of future generations depend on it.

Deepak Srivastava, MD, is president of Gladstone Institutes and director of Gladstone’s Roddenberry Stem Cell Center. He is also a professor in the Departments of Pediatrics, Biochemistry and Biophysics at UC San Francisco and a co-founder of iPierian Inc. and Tenaya Therapeutics.