Medical Research Funding Cuts: A Disruption in the Clinical Research Enterprise

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Michael Liu, medical student and researcher at Harvard Medical School, discussed a recent study on National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant cuts. Among other notable findings, the study highlighted that 20% of terminated grants were early career training grants, which are crucial for maintaining biomedical research pipelines. Liu also highlighted how the cuts have disproportionately affected institutions nationwide and compromised ongoing clinical trials, particularly those involving marginalized populations.

ACT: How have the NIH funding cuts affected the clinical research industry specifically?

Liu: Unfortunately, we didn't do an analysis of clinical research specifically, but it's not unreasonable to think that these cuts will have really impacted people in the clinical research industry, especially those who conduct trials. We know that trials are very expensive, and a loss of funding really compromises the ability to sustain and continue trials. I think what one thing that's really striking to us, I think I should’ve mentioned, was that a lot of grants that we saw were being cut were kind of cut halfway. There weren't grants that were just at the beginning or middle or the end. These could be trials that are in the middle of recruitment or in the data analytic period, and that's, I think, really deeply influential. They compromise our ability, whether you're delivering a drug or intervention, and not being able to afford continuing that or providing that to participants, if you're not able to employ staffs, research coordinators, research assistants, and to be able to keep the lights on in the building or lab, it's deeply disruptive.

I think the other thing that I would emphasize is that most times, clinical research, probably all the time, is that you're working with patients and patients place a lot of trust in us to be able to participate in trials and receive interventions. Particularly, we know that the NIMHD (National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities) was disproportionately affected, and these are interventions that tend to affect more marginalized disadvantaged populations and who already have rightfully so, distrust of healthcare systems and a lot of the research that we do. I think these cuts further potentially compromise the relationships and trust that we have with patients to continue to sustain the clinical trial enterprise.