Medical research depends on government money – even a day’s delay in the intricate funding process throws science off-kilter

In the first days of the second Trump administration, directed to All public communication stopped From the Ministry of Health and Humanitarian Services, it created uncertainty and anxiety among researchers, the biologist in the United States Main operations Among the many federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, including those decisive to progress in science and medicine.

These operations included freezing employment, traveling, and stopping the timer on publishing regulations, guidance and other communications documents. The guidance also stopped granting panels that define research projects that receive funding.

your As a result of these disordersNational Institutes of Health reported that they are unable to meet the study participants or recruit patients in clinical trials, and to delay the presentation of research results to scientific journals, and job performances that were canceled.

Luxor communication freezes In the first few days of the new administration is not common. But the consequences of freezing last or may emphasize the longest The decisive role the federal government plays In support of biomedical research. It also brings complex operations through which the granting of federal research is evaluated and granted in the spotlight.

I am a member of the Federal Research Review Committee, as well as world Those who underwent their own projects. My experience with the National Health Institutes has shown me that these paintings make a decision on the best financing science through strict review and careful examination.

How do the sections of the study of the National Institutes of Health work?

At the heart of the mission of the National Institutes of Health represented The process of reviewing the counterparts. The key to this process is the sections of the study – the scholars ’paintings and subject experts assigned to evaluate grants applications for scientific and technical feature. Supervising the sections of the study before Scientific Review CenterThe National Institutes of Health for all received grant proposals.

The typical study department consists of dozens of auditors who were chosen based on their experiences in the relevant fields and with a careful examination of any conflict of interests. These scholars are a mixture of permanent members and temporary participants.

I had the honor to work as a permanent tenant in the National Health Institutes study department for several years. This role requires a commitment from four to six years and provides an in -depth understanding of the pendant review process. Although Media reports and Social media Participations that indicate that many other paintings have been canceled, the meeting you renewed in February 2025 is currently as planned.

Auditors Application analysis using the main standardsIncluding the importance of research and innovation, researchers ’qualifications and training, feasibility and integrity of the study design, and the environment that will be done at work. Each standard is recorded in the total effect degree. Requests that contain the highest grades are sent to the next stage, where auditors meet to discuss and appoint the final classification.

Due to the absence of any perfect system, the National Health Institutes of Health Recal its own review process for potential improvements. For example, in a change in 2024, new transmitters will be reviewed from January 25, 2025, using an updated registration system that does not measure the researcher and the environment but It takes these criteria in mind In the degree of overall effect. This change improves the process by increasing the review concentration on the quality and effect of science.

From review to the award

After reviewing the peers, Applications are passed To NIH’s financing institutes and centers, such as National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or National Institute of CancerWhere the program officials evaluate the compatibility of applications with the priorities and budgets of related research programs.

A second layer of review is made by Consulting councils It is composed of scientists, doctors and general actors. In my experience, the degrees of the study and the comments usually carry the largest weight. Public health needs and policy guidance are also considered and ensuring that one type of research is not represented compared to other fields in financing decisions. These factors can change with transformations in administrative priorities.

Grant Awards are usually announced several months after the review process, although administrative freezing or uncertainty in the budget can extend this schedule. Last year, About 40 billion US dollars Biomedical research was greatly granted through nearly 50,000 competitive grants for more than 300,000 researchers in more than 2500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions throughout the United States

Getting federal financing for research is a high competitive process. On average, only 1 in 5 grant requests It was funded.

Administrative freezing consequences

The initial freezing of the Trump administration has stopped some of the steps in the process of granting grants for federal research. Some of the meetings of the study department were postponed indefinitely, and the program officials faced delay in processing applications. Some research groups that depend on financing the national health institutes of current projects can face the challenges of cash flow, which may lead to the need to expand the scope of research activities or temporarily reset employees.

Since my study department meeting is still to be held in February, I think this temporary suspension is temporary. This is consistent with a recent follow -up note from the Acting Secretary HHS Dorothy Fink, saying that the guidance will be In fact during February 1.

More importantly, the temporary suspension emphasizes the fragility of the research financing pipeline and the successive effects of administrative certainty. Early scientists who often depend on time grant awards in time to create their laboratories EspeciallyIncreasing concerns about the sustainability of the workforce in biomedical research.

Since the National Institutes of Health and the Research Society are transported in these stops, this separation is a reminder of the decisive importance of stable and predictable financing systems. Biomedical research in the United States Historically, partisan support. Protecting the task of the national institutes of health of the advancement of human health from political or administrative disorder is extremely important to ensure that the pursuit of scientific innovation and public health remains unacceptable.

This article has been republished from ConversationAn independent, non -profit news organization brings you facts and trusted analysis to help you understand our complex world. Written by: The pseudonym. Wastingand Iowa University

Read more:

Al -Misharaa K. Salem receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He works in the Executive Council of the American Association of Pharmacists.