Trump funding cuts leave Australian researchers in limbo

Australian researchers dependent on US funding and collaborations are facing an uncertain future as the Trump administration attempts to slash funding and slap restrictions on medical and scientific research.

Last week, the US government announced plans to cut $US4 billion ($6.4 billion) in research overhead costs — known as “indirect costs” — at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Government funding of indirect costs typically helps research institutions, including universities and hospitals, run facilities and cover administration fees. Last year, $US9 billion ($14.3 billion) — or roughly 26 per cent — of NIH funding went to indirect research costs.

The cuts were due to take effect early this week, but a US federal judge ordered a temporary pause nationwide after 22 states filed a lawsuit on the basis that “cutting-edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt” if the reductions were to go ahead.

Most of the NIH’s funding goes to research organisations in the US. However, it also supports some international research on the basis it furthers health science in the US by tapping into expertise, resources, populations or environmental conditions not readily available in the country.

One Australian researcher, who receives millions of dollars in NIH funding to study infectious diseases, said he was worried about what the future holds.

“The big challenge for us is the uncertainty,” the researcher, who spoke to the ABC on the condition of anonymity due to fears of retribution, said.

In addition to the proposed funding cuts, US science and health agencies have been grappling with executive orders to combat “gender ideology”, end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and a government freeze on federal grants and loans (which has since been rescinded).

Since Mr Trump’s January 20 inauguration, several agencies, including the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), have temporarily suspended or reviewed research grants, blocked funding, and/or cancelled meetings and staff travel.

“We were told to put everything on hold,” the Australian researcher said.

“It hasn’t necessarily been cancelled, but [we were told] don’t buy any tickets, don’t organise anything, don’t spend any money.

“How do we plan long term when we don’t know what’s going to happen?”

Orders send ‘chill’ through scientific community

Nick Talley, laureate professor and pro vice-chancellor of global research at the University of Newcastle, said although NIH grants made up a relative minority of research funding in Australia, the proposed cuts — and other Trump orders — were “very worrying”.

“There’s no doubt this has sent a chill through medical and health research throughout the world,” he said.

Cutting indirect costs in federal grants was a goal of Project 2025, a controversial blueprint for Mr Trump’s second term, which he has consistently disavowed. The project’s report said cuts “would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidisation of leftist agendas”.

In a memorandum announcing the NIH changes, acting NIH director Matthew Memoli said the cap on indirect research costs was necessary to “ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead”.

The proposed cuts, and other restrictions on scientific research, are a “scary” prospect, according to another Australian researcher who relies entirely on US funding to the tune of $US15 million ($23.8 million). She also spoke to the ABC on the condition of anonymity for fears of reprisal.

Last year, her team was awarded a $US2.5 million ($4 million) NIH grant, in addition to several million dollars from other US funding agencies.

“Communication with the NIH seems to be down … and [the situation] is changing really fast,” she said.

“Everyone is in the dark, everyone is stressed, and no-one knows what’s going on.”

She said her research, which aims to reduce global health disparities, was an understudied area, and she feared it may be subject to review given its focus on specific populations.

“We have been spearheading this area. So it is a worry.”

She said she was concerned about the potential impacts on the research team — which spans four countries and includes dozens of staff — and on the beneficiaries of the research, “who have always been left out”.

“Unfortunately what happens in the US affects the whole world,” she said.

“I’m absolutely shocked and amazed that some people don’t take this seriously.”

‘Censoring of science’

In January, federal health officials in the US were instructed to pause public communications and the publishing of scientific information, including H5N1 bird flu data.

To comply with an executive order barring any material that promoted “gender ideology”, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also removed thousands of pages from its website, including publications and guidelines on immunisation, contraception, and racism in healthcare, as well as HIV resources. Some of these pages have since been restored.

Professor Talley described the decision to remove or stop publishing scientific data as “incredibly dangerous”.

“It means there’s an information gap for public health officials … You can’t make sensible public health policy or protect people if the truth isn’t out there,” he said.

According to reports, CDC scientists have also been ordered by the Trump administration to withdraw any scientific papers submitted for publication that mention terms such as “gender”, “transgender” and “LGBT”.

Similarly, the NSF is reportedly reviewing current research grants to determine if they violate Trump’s directives (using keywords such as “women”, “equity”, “diverse” and “trauma”), while the NIH is allegedly vetting grant renewals and new proposals.

“There are very specific examples like gender-based research, which is clearly under threat,” Professor Talley said.

“Australia’s been a leader in the research world in terms of DEI and other aspects. Will that change now there’s been this sweeping wind of change in the US?

“You do worry about it.”

Global impacts on science and health not yet clear

Joseph Doyle, president of the Australian Society for Infectious Diseases, said it would likely take some time to fully understand the impacts of a Trump presidency on scientific research and global health.

“The capacity of international agencies will likely be affected — both by research changes and … through [cuts to] CDC, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the World Health Organization (WHO),” Professor Doyle said.

In January, Mr Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the WHO, triggering a 12-month notice period to leave the health agency and stop all financial contributions to its work.

His administration has also announced a funding freeze on USAID (with waivers for some humanitarian programs) and is reviewing the US’s membership of the United Nations’ agency for education, science and culture.

“I don’t think we should be deterred by changes overseas. If anything, we need to double down and make sure that we really resource Australia’s own CDC, and we strengthen other institutions,” Professor Doyle said.

In the meantime, the Australian infectious diseases researcher who receives NIH funding said he wasn’t sure whether the agency would “pull the plug completely” on his international research collaboration since “the administration is clearly very inward looking”.

“We just don’t know how the rules are going to change,” he said.

“So at the moment, we move ahead like nothing has happened.”

A court hearing for President Trump’s proposed NIH cuts has been set for February 21.