Proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget—including a sharp reduction in indirect cost reimbursements—threaten to destabilize the very foundation of biomedical research in the United States. These cuts, aimed at reducing overhead costs, ignore the reality that indirect funding is essential for the infrastructure that sustains scientific discovery. From maintaining laboratories to supporting core administrative functions, these funds ensure that breakthrough research can continue at the pace and scale required to make meaningful advancements in human health.
As scientific communicators, we play our role in advancing scientific discovery and development for some of the world’s most compelling science and healthcare brands. Those companies—spanning life science instrumentation, molecular diagnostics, and drug discovery and development—depend on a strong and well-funded research ecosystem to drive innovation. This proposed shift in research funding doesn’t just threaten academic institutions; it has a ripple effect across the entire life sciences sector, slowing the pipeline of new technologies, diagnostics, and therapeutics that ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Critics of the proposed NIH budget cuts, including leading researchers and policymakers, argue that these reductions will create significant barriers to progress. While efficiency in government spending is important, arbitrarily capping indirect costs at 15%—far below the negotiated rates that institutions rely on—undermines the ability of researchers to secure the resources they need. The unintended consequence? Slower scientific advancements, reduced global competitiveness, and fewer groundbreaking discoveries reaching the patients who need them most, not to mention the impact to a workforce with specialized skills.
There is a very real and almost immediate economic impact as well. For example, the NIH reports that in fiscal year 2023, every $1 of NIH funding generated approximately $2.46 of economic activity. For every $100 million of funding, NIH-supported research generates 76 patents. These patents create opportunities for an estimated $598 million in further research and development. NIH-supported patents also represent significant advances in their fields and produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents. And finally, more than 30% of NIH grants produced a scientific article that is later cited in a commercial patent. Simply put, those statistics represent an undeniably significant return on investment.
Scientific innovation does not happen in a vacuum. It requires collaboration, infrastructure, and sustained investment. For decades, NIH-funded research has been responsible for major breakthroughs, from cancer treatments to next-generation sequencing technologies. By limiting the resources available to researchers, these cuts risk stalling the momentum of life-changing science.
We recognize that infrastructures evolve, bringing both disruption and opportunity—a reality highlighted by Steve Lehmann in his recent Substack, Navigating a Shifting Biotech Ecosystem. We also understand the importance of government efficiency and responsible spending to ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively. But these priorities must be balanced with the need to sustain scientific innovation and progress. A well-funded research ecosystem fuels economic growth, enhances U.S. competitiveness in the global market, and ultimately drives medical breakthroughs that save lives. Cutting costs in ways that hinder research will only lead to greater long-term expenses—both financially and in terms of public health.
HDMZ stands with the scientific community in advocating for policies that foster, rather than hinder, progress. We urge policymakers to recognize that investing in research is not a cost—it’s a commitment to the future of human health and innovation. Now, more than ever, we must communicate the critical role of funding in sustaining the discoveries that shape the future of medicine, technology, and patient care.
