Note: A version of this article appeared in the Yale Daily News.
I was born in Ohio, lived in Morocco and graduated from a French high school. Then, I moved to Tunisia, where I spent two years at a medical school and worked in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was there that I discovered my passion for clinical interactions with brain cancer patients after feeling the pain of a young patient dying hopelessly from Glioblastoma. This experience fueled my drive for the fight against brain cancer, and I was soon ready to go back to the United States with a clear commitment to joining a world-leading cancer research community.
I switched countries, universities and majors to join the neuroscience program at Case Western Reserve University, where I met Dr. Wen-Chen Xiong and Dr. Daehoon Lee, who became invaluable mentors. They thoroughly prepared me to become a capable neuroscience undergraduate student researcher. With their support, I was selected as one of the seven American Cancer Society scholars at Yale University this year, an experience providing exceptional skills and knowledge while preparing undergraduate students to be the next generation of biomedical scientists and physician-scientists.
The program offered me invaluable hands-on research experience in biomedical sciences, emphasizing the integration of clinical practice and scientific research. I had the privilege of interacting with patients, working alongside leading researchers and clinicians and gaining exposure to laboratory environments and clinical settings. My cancer research project focused on brain cancer biology with an emphasis on DNA damage repair and drug discovery, investigating cancer cell viability by targeting specific genes. Through seminars, networking events, patient interactions and tumor boards with neurosurgeons, particularly in the context of brain cancer, I realized how research can directly impact patient care and how emotionally significant it is for cancer patients, who, in their fight, wait with hope for a cure.
As excited as I am for graduation and the chance to join a lab as a student researcher, I can’t help but feel concerned about the fate of the opportunities that will be available for young cancer student researchers. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) recent decision to announce a cap on grants, limiting the indirect cost rate to 15%, raises uncertainty about funding availability.
Indirect costs are vital for supporting personnel, facilities, regulatory compliance, utilities and safety measures required for research. Without this infrastructure, conducting research with direct cost funding alone becomes impossible, threatening biomedical research activities nationwide.
The average NIH indirect cost rate has always been between 27 and 28% of the total grant amount in the past. However, some research universities, such as CWRU, Yale University and Harvard University, have negotiated much higher rates, reaching approximately 60% for indirect costs.
This high funding rate has been fundamental to sustaining the success and survival of research of such world-leading universities. A policy change would have a profoundly negative impact on all American research institutions and the principal investigators who drive innovation forward and keep the United States at the forefront of science.
While they struggled to maintain their labs with around 60% indirect funding, these research hubs now face the challenge of doing so with only 15%. If this policy stays, scientific progress will slow, the U.S.’s leadership in scientific innovation will be at risk and cancer patients will be deprived of potential cures. Current researchers may lose their jobs as principal investigators struggle to save their research. Under these conditions, the idea of research training opportunities for young student researchers would undoubtedly become unrealistic.
On February 8 and 11 at CWRU, President Eric Kaler addressed the NIH’s sudden cap on indirect cost rates at 15%, calling it a major threat to the infrastructure that sustains scientific research. He emphasized that indirect costs are essential for maintaining personnel, research facilities, compliance and safety—without which government-funded research cannot be carried out. Kaler warned that the policy would significantly harm all American research universities.
While the U.S. government executive order of the NIH funding cut was delayed by advocacy from national academic organizations and state attorneys general that filed lawsuits in federal court, resulting in a temporary restraining order blocking the policy’s implementation, the final outcome remains unknown to this day. However, what is certain is that the stability of biomedical research in the United States is undeniably under threat, and cancer patients and researchers are counting every single day, waiting for a final answer.
Even if this financial crisis within the scientific community proves to be temporary, its impact will be significant, as it will halt the progression of research. Much like COVID-19’s long-term negative effects, cuts to research funding could lead to the loss of an entire generation of researchers, which is my biggest concern.
America has long been the leader in research and intellectual advancement. However, today, this decision from our government is putting its stability at risk in an attempt to “save the agency $4 billion” annually. In the long term, if we fail to challenge this policy, it may lead to an assassination of the American dream for a very low price.
To put things into perspective, the country spent over $1.5 trillion on defense in 2022 alone, including costly projects like the F-35 fighter jet program, which, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, is projected to cost over $2 trillion for acquisition and sustainment—despite facing widespread criticism for inefficiency.
The vital $4 billion invested in research funding is one of the most influential and high-return investments that the U.S. can make. It is just a minuscule fraction of what is wasted in other areas with far less impactful returns on investment and benefits far less significant than those of U.S. research and innovation to the nation and the world. This money is not “wasted” or even spent; it is one of the best investments that adds more money to the U.S. economy. Cutting research funding—which drives innovation, healthcare breakthroughs and economic growth—threatens the progress that has made America the global leader in science and technology.
Cutting NIH funding risks devastating cancer research, harming patients and weakening America’s position in global competition. As Vladimir Putin invests more in cancer research and announces a free cancer vaccine soon to be available to the world, our president’s decision may harm American science and end this competition. Now, our scientific community advocates to be heard by representatives to revoke this decision. I hope that our president will listen to our community and not approach this like a business where “success” and “money” are blindly associated but instead make the right decision to avoid slowing American scientific progress, destroying intellectual opportunities—and most importantly—not take hope away from dying cancer patients. Many scientists trust him—now it’s time for him to trust scientists. I hope our president will change his mind because this is the only way to truly “Make America Great Again.”
Cancer patients are losing hope, but they are not alone in their struggle. This past month, a series of nationwide protests, known as “Stand Up for Science 2025,” mobilized thousands to join our advocacy and oppose NIH funding cuts that threaten the future of scientific progress. The fight for science funding is not just about labs: It is about lives. This movement focuses on engaging policymakers, raising awareness about the impact of funding cuts on scientific progress and urging congressional representatives to protect America’s leadership in life sciences. Sincere appreciation is given to all who stood with us in this initiative and contributed to this critical cause.