Leaders from across the biomedical field did not hold back this week when describing the impact that the Trump’s administration’s cuts to scientific research would have on the future of healthcare.
"This is not a transition – this is an insurrection," said Greg Simon, President of Simonovation LLC and former Executive Director of the White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force. "They are destroying our institutions one at a time, on purpose."
Simon spoke at Cure’s Power of X Summit: Solutions for an Untapped Market, on the topic of “Advocating for Lasting Change: How to Build on Momentum and Work with Your Policy Makers?” He and other panelists including former NIH and Department of Defense officials painted a stark picture of the fallout from federal research cuts.
"There's absolute mayhem in the academic medical community," said panelist Jenny Luray, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Public Engagement at Research! America. “I'm really concerned about the new generation of scientists, and where do they go? What do they do? We’re losing all of that incredible intelligence and passion and creativity in federal research.”
Just two months into President Trump's second term, the administration has issued numerous executive orders affecting grants and research funding. Thousands of employees across different agencies have been laid off, causing delays and uncertainty with healthcare regulatory decisions. While courts have begun countering some actions, much remains in limbo.
The uncertainty extends across federal agencies. A continuing resolution passed to fund the government included a 69 percent cut to the NIH Innovation Fund and a 57 percent cut to congressionally directed military research programs. The FDA faces similar challenges with staffing reductions and policy changes.
Advocacy Strategies for Biomedical Research in a Changing Funding Landscape
The panelists didn’t spend the entire time on doom and gloom – they offered advocacy strategies and alternative funding pathways for researchers and scientists wondering where to turn next. The discussion covered ways scientists might approach policymakers, forge partnerships and explore diverse funding sources in the current environment.
Cartier Esham, PhD, CEO of Esham Strategies and former executive at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, suggested framing research in terms of the impact it will have on real people.
“Your job as an advocate is just to be crystal clear why this matters,” she said. “It’s really important to stay focused and not play into somebody else's game. Don't let their words become your words - use your own words, just explain why this matters.”
Simmons recommended framing research in terms that connect directly to legislators' families. Rather than using abstract categories like "women's health research," he suggested personalizing the conversation to "mothers, daughters and sisters."
“Do you want to support health research for your mother, your daughter, your sister, your spouse? If the answer to that is ‘no,’ good luck when you get home,” he said. “But when we say ‘women,’ it's too big a category. It's not personal enough.”
Liz Powell, Founder of G2G Consulting and a former congressional staffer, suggested building relationships with legislative staff, not just elected officials, could be an effective strategy for driving change.
"As a former congressional staffer, we're the ones that tell the boss what to do, we tell them how to vote," Powell said. "Get to know the staff. Those are the ones you want — that staff to be your advocate,"
Another strategy for swaying lawmakers is connecting research to military readiness, said Seileen Mullen, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
"When you're applying for your grant funding across [Department of Defense], your number one thing should be saying how this improves the readiness of the force," Mullen said.
The panel noted that while certain research areas face significant cuts, others have maintained funding. According to Mullen, women's health research within the Department of Defense continues to receive support due to the growing percentage of women in the all-volunteer force.
Researchers interested in engaging directly with policymakers have an opportunity to participate in a Women's Health Day on Capitol Hill scheduled for May 21, according to Powell.
Alternative Funding Routes Emerge
As federal research dollars face uncertainty, alternative funding sources are gaining prominence. Several private foundations and European institutions are stepping in to fill the gap. Brussels-based university Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) recently announced it was allocating funding and resources for “researchers currently working in the US which see their line of research threatened.”
The University noted it’s also being impacted by the Trump administration’s cutbacks, losing two research projects in collaboration with U.S. partners due to 'changed policy priorities.'
"Our university is freeing up funds and establishing a dedicated contact point for American researchers who want to continue their work in Brussels," said VUB Rector Jan Danckaert in a statement. "U.S. universities and their scholars are the biggest victims of this political and ideological interference. They are seeing millions in research funding disappear for ideological reasons.”
Aix-Marseille University, in France’s Provence region, has launched a “Safe Place For Science” program, “dedicated to welcoming scientists wishing to pursue their work in an environment conducive to innovation, excellence and academic freedom.” The university is aiming to raise 15 million euros for a three-year program
In the U.S., some organizations are also offering funding to pick up the slack. Recursion Pharmaceuticals recently launched the Altitude Lab Pre-seed Venture Fund, which will invest $100,000 to $250,000 in pre-seed capital along with 12 months of lab and office space at Altitude Lab's facilities (see “Recursion Offers Lifeline to Startups Left in Limbo by NIH Cuts,” on Cure Insights).
Impact on Regulatory Processes
The FDA faces its own challenges under the new administration, according to Esham, who currently serves as executive director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA. She said delays with regulatory reviews could significantly impact both patients and the companies developing new therapies.
“The FDA is charged with making sure that medicines get to patients as quickly as possible in a way that is safe and will improve their lives,” she said. “But there's a lot we're waiting to understand, the impact of what's happening is still evolving, but there's reason for concern.”
Simon described any delays in more concrete terms.
"If you lose three months of FDA review, you could lose up to 15 to 20 new approved drugs for unmet conditions," Simon said. "And if that slows down, the whole pipeline slows down, and then people do not invest. So, this has huge ramifications.”
What's at Stake
The international standing of American science could also be affected by the policy changes and reduction in funding. The U.S. has maintained its leadership in biomedical innovation partly through robust federal funding, leading to approximately 60 percent of new medicines historically approved in the U.S. first, according to Esham.
The international impact has already impacted real lives, Simon said.
"The United States is already responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths around the world," he said. "People who were getting HIV meds, people who were getting tuberculosis, they've all been thrown out of the clinics."
Talk to Congress
Luray said reaching out to congressional representatives and describing how the cuts will affect the community, such as universities that receive funding, may help.
"Talk to your members of Congress,” Luray said. “They need to hear from you. They need the stories.”