Register Now - Beyond Recruitment: The Future of Patient Site Engagement in Oncology Clinical Trials
Commentary|Videos|March 28, 2025

The Impact of Funding Cuts on Medical Research

In this video interview, Craig Lipset, co-chair, Decentralized Trials & Research Alliance (DTRA), shares his thoughts on the recent funding cuts made by the NIH and how they are impacting medical research.

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Craig Lipset, co-chair, Decentralized Trials & Research Alliance (DTRA), discussed the impact of recent regulatory decisions on clinical research. Funding cuts by the NIH will affect intramural research and shared infrastructure. Additionally, the politicization of diversity initiatives will affect the enforcement of action plans. Lipset also highlighted the industry’s response to these actions and what it can expect moving forward.

ACT: What was your initial reaction to some of the most recent regulatory decisions impacted by the federal government such as NIH funding cuts and the FDA removing its diversity webpages?

Lipset: Clearly, this is a very polarizing time politically for a lot of folks, but I think objectively, most would say that efficiencies are needed, and that would be a good thing. We want our public research dollars to make the greatest possible impact, but it does feel like many of the actions to date have been, the visual is more chainsaws than scalpels. We see things being targeted, like the role of overhead with NIH funding of academic research and that seems like an easy target just to go after, but it has tremendous consequences. Overhead in academic research supported by the NIH supports intramural research, those research initiatives that are being funded by the universities themselves, that often provide the seeding of what future research we want to go after, those are often the higher risk, smaller things to go after. Overhead supports our shared infrastructure, our labs, our technical equipment, and other shared resources that you couldn't put as a line item into just one direct budget, one set of direct costs for a grant, so there's tremendous consequences, and it is painful for many of us to see that ripple effect in terms of PhD acceptances being rescinded for a next generation of research scientists, and certainly for a lot of the staffing and resourcing, even just within the FDA and the NIH.


Related to this article

What Needs to Happen Beyond the Clinical Trial Modernization Act
In this video interview, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, calls for safe harbor protections, CMS reimbursement safeguards, and funding mechanisms modeled on EHR meaningful use to help community and rural institutions participate in research on par with academic centers.
Closing the Community Access Gap: Q&A with Kent Thoelke, Paradigm Health
In this Q&A, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, discusses why participation gaps in community and rural settings come down to both patient cost barriers and site infrastructure, how legacy workflows weigh on community clinics, and what policy and technology changes it would take to make clinical research a real care option for more patients.
Building AI Assistants Clinical Trial Teams Can Trust: Q&A with E.K. Koh, Suvoda
In this Q&A, E.K. Koh, chief product officer at Suvoda, discusses what separates a trustworthy AI assistant from one that adds risk, why curated clinical knowledge matters more than general-purpose flexibility, and what safeguards must be in place when assistants move from answering questions to taking actions in clinical trial systems.