Scientists around the world who are working on projects funded by the US National Institute of Health – are facing uncertainty about the future of their grant – the largest sponsor of the world’s biomedical research.

NIH, whose annual budget is around $ 48 billion, is currently financing 50,000 grants to more than 3 lakh researchers in 2,500 universities, hospitals and other institutions.

However, the administration under US President Donald Trump has temporarily grant in NIH amid job cuts and trimming. This allows a new team to establish the current grant and review of future applications.

Concern over the impact on global medical research

While the decision has been designed as part of the comprehensive effort by the federal government to reduce the expenditure, critics have warned that reducing the NIH budget can return significant medical research not only in the United States, but worldwide.

NIH is one of the largest funds of cancer remedies and vaccine development, mental health studies and rare disease research. Its funding not only enhances innovation in the US, but also keeps collaborative efforts with international researchers.

For example, the Trump administration has frozen all NIH funding research grants at Columbia University, which is one of the top educational institutions in the country, cutting the flow of $ 250 million after a decline of $ 400 million in the past last month, saying that the university did not enough to save Jewish students from being disturbed during the protest protests about the Israel-Gaza war.

According to the Science and Community Impact Mapping Project, a data-managed platform by global researchers, within the US, will have a decrease of over 6.25 million in funding in over 500 counties.

Major universities face mass grant hit

In Colombia, NIH is reportedly not only blocking new funding, but also preventing payment for work on existing projects. In addition, the agency will require prior approval to tap the current disbursement.

Not only Colombia, NIH Fund has been terminated for at least nine grants, $ 8 million, at Brown University, in another major institute.

These grants conduct funded research related to various issues, in which testing for disorganized people from the prevention of young HIV to the Kovid -19 test.

In these awards, funding was yet to be spent for more than $ 3.5 million.

Asked about whether these grants were part of the large freeze, a spokesman of the US Health and Human Services Department told Herald that the agency is “partnership with other federal agencies, which are to make a comprehensive review of the grants given to universities that have failed to protect students from discriminatory behavior.”

Scientists speak on NIH fund freeze

The disadvantage of funding has left many scientists to find out how to continue their work.

At least 145 grants related to progress in HIV care have been cut off.

Julia Marcus, a professor at Harvard Medical School, said, “The disadvantage of this research may result in the result of resurrection of HIV, which is more generalized in this country.”

One of the Marcus projects was investigating whether prep (east-exposure Profilaxis, an antiviral drug, which is highly successful in preventing new HIV infections once a day) would increase the use of drugs in weak communities.

“These rigorous cuts are rapidly destroying the infrastructure of scientific research in this country and we are going to lose a generation of scientists,” Marcus said.

Amy Noon, another researcher, a public health professor at Brown University, said that he had also shaped his grant proposals to match the government’s goals, such as focusing on HIV prevention in specific areas.

One of his canceled studies aims to reduce the difference in PREP (HIV prevention drug) among African American men at Jackson, Mississippi.

The nun said, “He eventually made those goals a part of the national policy,” saying that Trump was actually the first President to prioritize the HIV epidemic. Now they are undo their progress. It is very misleading, “Nun said.

By cutting back on NIH funding, the US also took the risk of weakening these global participation. Researchers in lower and medium -income countries who rely on NIH grant for infectious disease monitoring, maternal health studies and public health programs can see their work stalls or disappear completely.

Anita Davinney, an assistant professor at Emori University, wrote on X, “This sabotage is no meaning. Almost every medicine or treatment you have in NIH-funded research have roots, and NIH produces $ 2.46 in each $ 1 return of expenses.”

Impact on biotech industry and emerging research

The wave effects of NIH budget cuts can also be felt in drug and biotech industries, which often create NIH-funded basic science research to develop new drugs and treatments. The direct effects of NIH funding cuts in the biotech industry are already being felt.

The company affiliated to Yale University, lost a special grant to support virtuous medical science, diversity. According to a report by Yale News, an important young researcher had to leave the team.

Low investment in basic studies means less discovery to translate into real -world remedies.

Small research laboratories and startups, both in the US and abroad, can suffer the most. Many of these depend on NIH grants, which is to pursue high-risk, high-inam projects, which are not ready to fund the private sector.

Emerging scientists and early-career researchers are particularly weak.

Healthcare Consultant Elliot Bauur stated that one of the most unseen effects of NIH grant is an early career talent.

“There is a team of postdox, coordinators and growing investigators behind every grant,” he said, “he said,” when funding is cut, it is not just a study. It is a generation of innovation. It is a badness for science. Bad for patients and research for patients is bad for long -term flexibility of ecosystems. “

With low grant available, competition for funding will become even more terrible, possibly to run talent away from science.

According to scientists, the effect can be prolonged, causing a slowdown in brain drain and medical innovation.

Erin Kahle, director of the Center for Sexual and Health Inequality at the University of Michigan, lost an NIH grant, told The Guardian that the freeze is “erasing” an entire population of people who have been affected by infectious diseases.

“It has been setting us back for decades,” Kahle said.