Howard Temin was a UW-Madison scientist who shared the 1975 Nobel Prize for his discovery of “reverse transcriptase,” which described how tumor viruses act on the genetic material of cells to make copies of themselves before integrating into the host genome.
The National Institutes of Health helped to pay for his research, which revolutionized how science approached genetics and treatment of diseases such as cancer. It even has a grant named for him today.
Grants from NIH also prompted the development of Gleevec, a landmark drug that dramatically improved outcomes for many patients with a type of blood cancer called chronic myelogenous leukemia. Over time, more NIH-funded research led to second-, third- and even fourth-generation drugs that changed the face of cancer research.
Appendicitis was once treatable only through painful surgery that left patients slow to recover, if at all. Research funded by NIH led to widespread adoption of laparoscopic appendectomy, a minimally invasive procedure that led to faster recovery times, less pain and fewer complications.
The list goes on. From bipolar disorder to hepatitis, and from strokes to development of magnetic resonance imaging, research tied to NIH grants has changed life for millions of people over time. So why are some politicians clamoring to slash a part of the NIH grant-making process that has helped health science advance?
That question arose when President Trump’s administration ordered immediate cuts in a part of the NIH grant-making process called “indirect costs.” These are essentially dollars spent so core grants get enough background support – machines, laboratory space and the like – to have a chance for success.
The Feb. 7 effort to cut NIH funding for indirect costs at universities, hospitals and other institutions was delayed by the courts after a suit was filed by the state of Wisconsin and others. That suit showed the program had prior congressional approval. If the original order proceeds, however, it could cause lasting harm to U.S. biomedical research.
It will also weaken one of the nation’s biggest competitive advantages – and open the door for China and other nations to fill the research gap.
No federal program is immune to scrutiny, but the overall track record of NIH when it comes to the nation’s health is hard to beat. Such grants are also job creators. In Wisconsin, for example, an entire industry can trace its growth to federal grants and related academic support.
Sales of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines made by GE Healthcare in Waukesha had flattened in the early 1990s, largely because the functions of such machines was limited. Over time, university researchers worked alongside GE engineers to develop ways to expand MRI diagnostic power to vascular systems; stroke detection; tumors; head trauma; chronic liver diseases and more.
It prompted a medical need for more scanners. There are about 13,000 such machines in the United States today and perhaps 50,000 GE scanners worldwide. The continuous economic vitality GE created in Waukesha over time began with federal investment in imaging science – and indirect cost allocations helped make it all happen.
Research funded through NIH in Wisconsin in 2023 totaled $654 million, with some of the largest recipients being UW-Madison, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Blood Center of Wisconsin, Marquette University and the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation. These institutions have helped bring discoveries to people close to home and far away.
Divide that $654 million by Wisconsin’s nearly 6 million people, and it’s less than $110 per year per capita. That’s an investment in healthy people, not a “fleecing” or “waste, fraud and abuse” as described by some supporters of the administration order.
Jo Handelsman, a molecular biologist who leads the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, noted “the genius of the last 80 years” of decentralized federal research support has been bipartisan and patient.
“This policy has made the United States the world’s envy as the gold standard of science and fueled the American economy through prosperous industries in health, technology and agriculture,” she said.
Added Dr. Brad Schwartz, a hematologist who heads the Morgridge Institute for Research in Madison: “These federal funds directly benefit regular people across Wisconsin. The United States leads the world; it has improved lifespans and quality of life for people in all parts of Wisconsin … and it will benefit our children and grandchildren.”
Medical research is already hard and incremental; making it harder is dangerous for people and the economy.
Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council.
