A person breathes inside the Gesundheit II, a machine that allows scientists to study the behavior of pathogens when they’re exhaled. This type of research faces funding challenges due to proposed cuts by the Trump administration.
Rob Stein/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Rob Stein/NPR
A proposal from the Trump administration to alter the funding structure of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has left laboratories across the nation in turmoil.
Dr. Donald Milton’s laboratory at the University of Maryland, focused on how respiratory viruses are transmitted, stands to face significant reductions in funding and staffing if the new policy is enacted.
The core piece of his lab is a peculiar apparatus in a booth with plastic windows: a large silver cone reminiscent of an antique gramophone, connected to various wires and tubes.
This is the Gesundheit II, a device designed to gather and analyze particles from human exhalations (or sneezes).
“Individuals infected with the flu or other respiratory viruses come in. The person places their face in the cone, and the air around them is sucked into it,” explains Milton, who is a professor of environmental health at the School of Public Health at the university.
This apparatus serves as one method for Milton and his team to explore how respiratory viruses, such as the flu and COVID-19, propagate from one individual to another.
“Understanding the transmission route is crucial since the strategies to halt it depend on the transmission mechanism,” he states.
However, Milton notes that his research is at risk due to the Trump administration’s plan to limit indirect costs related to medical research to 15%, whereas his university currently receives about 56%.
“This would severely impact our research,” Milton expresses worryingly. “It would hinder our progress and could jeopardize the longevity of our projects.”
Donald Milton expresses that he is on the verge of losing about a third of the federal funding allocated for the Gesundheit II and associated studies.
Rob Stein/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Rob Stein/NPR
The NIH, which has recently let go around 1,000 employees in its Bethesda, Md., campus, remains the largest public funding source for biomedical research globally. The agency allocates a significant portion of its $48 billion annual budget towards external research, including roughly $9 billion designated for indirect expenses.
“Since WWII, the U.S. has cultivated the most effective and successful research system in human history,” Milton points out. “This achievement was due to federal support providing the necessary infrastructure for research. Indirect costs play a crucial role in this support. Without it, the entire system could collapse.”
The Trump administration argues that many institutions could trim unnecessary expenses or utilize their endowments to meet funding needs. This would enable the NIH to allocate the potential $4 billion in savings towards further research outside prestigious academic institutions, according to the administration.
Some experts agree with this perspective.
“Indirect cost rates should be manageable for universities to support their overhead while also allowing a greater proportion of the NIH’s budget to be channeled directly into scientific inquiries,” remarks Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank.
“Most individuals applying for NIH funding are well-directed. By redirecting additional funds toward scientists, we can finance more deserving research,” he adds.
A federal judge in Boston has temporarily halted the initiative to cap NIH funding for indirect costs as of February 10, following two lawsuits that claimed the alteration would breach federal law. U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelley is anticipated to make a ruling soon regarding the cap’s implementation. Lawyers representing the Trump administration, 22 state attorneys general, and a coalition of universities, medical schools, research hospitals, and other entities presented their cases for and against the cap during a two-hour hearing on Friday.
Should the plan proceed, Milton predicts he would lose approximately $1.1 million from his $3.3 million NIH funding, potentially necessitating layoffs of up to 50% of his 21-member team.
“This uncertainty is causing significant anxiety,” Milton admits. “It’s challenging to predict what the outcome will be.”
The Gesundheit II is merely one tool in one of the laboratories funded by the NIH, where Milton and his colleagues perform their investigations.
“We’re in the process of replacing components of our Gesundheit II since it has been in use for nearly 20 years, and naturally, things wear out,” Milton explains.
In fact, about one-third of his NIH funding is applied to indirect costs.
“This covers the lighting, equipment maintenance, heating, cooling, and administrative staff to handle payment invoices,” he clarifies.
The proposed funding adjustments are just one factor contributing to staff unease at NIH. Concerns are also mounting regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s prospective appointment to lead the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the NIH. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, another NIH critic, is the chosen candidate by President Trump to be the next NIH director.
The NIH is additionally advocating for the White House to lift a freeze it placed on the agency, prohibiting any new announcements in the Federal Register. This embargo is obstructing the NIH from convening new meetings essential for the advancement of fresh grant proposals, thereby suspending billions in research funding.
In the meantime, research continues in Milton’s laboratory. A student suffering from a fever arrives to undergo blood tests, nasal swabs, saliva collection, and participate in the Gesundheit II testing.
“Are you doing okay?” one of Milton’s assistants queries the student once settled. “Could you please recite the alphabet slowly into the cone?”
The objective of this experiment is to ascertain methods to safeguard the population against potential outbreaks that could lead to the next pandemic, such as bird flu.
“Is it airborne? Are masks effective? Are there supplemental measures we should consider, like ensuring proper ventilation and filtration?” Milton states.
These are critical questions that scientists and healthcare professionals urgently seek answers to.
