Attorneys general in 22 states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Feb. 10, aiming to prevent significant cuts to federal grant funding for medical research projects. Hours later, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a temporary restraining order to block the National Institutes of Health from implementing a new policy to cut reimbursements for research-related costs within the 22 states that filed the lawsuit. A hearing to evaluate next steps has been set for Feb. 21, according to ABC News.
In a memo published Feb. 7, the NIH — the primary funding source for medical research in the U.S. — said it would cap the amount of funding research institutions can receive for indirect costs at 15%, effective Feb. 10. When institutions are granted NIH funds for a research project, they also receive a percentage for indirect costs related to the research, which include laboratory space, equipment, maintenance and security.
The move has drawn criticism from the medical research community at large, including hospitals and medical schools.
Four more details:
- Twenty-two states, led by attorneys general in Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan, sued the NIH and its parent agency, HHS, claiming the cuts violate federal law. The lawsuit also claims the NIH exceeded its authority in making the indirect cost reimbursement cuts retroactive to existing grants. The states were seeking a court order to prevent the new policy from taking effect.
"The administration’s decision to cap NIH reimbursement rates could force scientists to shutter their lifesaving research on cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, addiction, infectious diseases and more," New York Attorney General Letitia James, said in a Feb. 10 statement announcing the lawsuit. "My office will not stand idly by as this administration once again puts politics over science and endangers public health." - The 15% cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs is a significant decline from the average of around 27% to 28%. The NIH said it anticipated the move to save more than $4 billion in federal costs annually. "The United States should have the best medical research in the world," the agency said in the memo. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
- Some research institutions have received reimbursements for indirect costs that are much greater than the 27% average. Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins each previously received more than 60% in indirect cost funding for medical research projects, according to the NIH.
- Research institutions have denounced the new policy, saying the cuts would limit research activity nationwide. The University of California said it received $2.6 billion in NIH research funding during the last academic year. The institution called the indirect cost rate policy as proposed "catastrophic," saying it would lose hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
"Every American will be harmed by the undermining of this long-standing partnership between academic institutions and the federal government," the Association of American Medical Colleges, said in a statement. "Make no mistake. This announcement will mean less research. Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out. Researchers and staff will lose their jobs."
"Reducing the indirect cost rate will threaten the ability of children's hospitals to provide future groundbreaking cures for children," the Children's Hospital Association said in a statement. "We urge the administration to rescind this guidance."