The Impact of NIH Funding Cuts and Diversity Bans on Research and Talent Retention

ACT: In addition to the NIH funding cuts, how do you see the clinical trials industry navigating other political challenges, such as the diversity bans?

Lanton: Researchers will have to add an extra layer of consideration to something they haven’t really done before. They now have to view their trials through a more conservative lens. When conducting research to solve a problem, one would expect the process to be objective, but unfortunately, that’s the reality we’re in now.

This entire situation is disheartening. It could halt many clinical trials focusing on minority groups and stifle progress on certain vaccines. This could lead to entire sectors of science receiving neither funding nor attention. I don’t think we fully understand the magnitude of this yet—it won’t be clear until it actually happens. It’s ironic in a way, but an important question must be asked: What happens when others refuse to innovate? I believe those innovators will leave for places where they’re welcome. Unfortunately, if this continues, we may see a significant exodus of talented scientists from the U.S. over the next few years. I wouldn’t be surprised if many relocate to the EU, Asia, or other regions where scientists are encouraged to be more creative and address critical needs. Regardless of funding, these scientific advancements remain necessary and demand attention.

Full Interview Summary: The future of NIH-funded research is facing significant uncertainty due to changes in funding policies under the new administration. A major issue is the reduction of indirect cost reimbursements, which cover administrative, regulatory, and overhead expenses, from 50% to 15%. This shift, currently halted by legal challenges, threatens research institutions’ financial stability. Additionally, a freeze on grant proposal reviews via the Federal Register has further complicated NIH’s funding process, requiring researchers to seek alternative funding sources, primarily from the private sector. However, this shift could create a highly competitive environment, potentially stalling critical research in areas like cancer and sickle cell disease.

Political challenges, including diversity-related restrictions, further complicate clinical trials. Researchers may now need to approach trial design with a more conservative lens, which could hinder studies focused on minority populations and vaccine development. If funding and regulatory barriers persist, the U.S. risks losing scientific talent to more research-friendly environments in the EU and Asia.

While some court rulings have temporarily allowed NIH to continue research funding, long-term solutions would require Congressional action. However, given the current partisan landscape, legislative intervention to secure NIH funding against political interference appears unlikely. If the administration defies court rulings, it could create a constitutional crisis, undermining the checks and balances of the federal government.

Beyond NIH, new reciprocal tariffs could disrupt the pharmaceutical supply chain, particularly for raw materials sourced internationally. Many commercial contracts include clauses that could be triggered, nullifying agreements and exacerbating supply shortages. Given the executive branch’s broad authority over trade policy, tariff changes could increase prescription drug costs and create economic instability. With Congress unlikely to reclaim tariff-setting power soon, the full impact remains uncertain, necessitating a “wait and see” approach.

Click here to watch the entire interview on Pharmaceutical Executive, our sister publication.