YuLin Zhen, Photography Editor

In 2019, federal centers like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health started funding gun violence research after more than a 20-year hiatus. However, this research is once again under threat.

This year, the budget bill for the 2025 fiscal year seeks to eliminate funding for “any research relating to gunshot injury or mortality prevention that treats crimes committed with a firearm as a public health epidemic.” The News talked to Yale researchers about the proposal and the impact it would have on such research.  

“It’s so easy for this kind of stuff to get hidden in the 400-page document of budget proposals put out by the community, and no one knows about it,” Daniele Poole, director of research at the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, told the News. “We’re finally in a position in gun violence prevention research that can save a lot of lives. A lack of federal funds for research can stagnate our efforts to do so.” 

The history of gun violence prevention research

In 1997 — after advocacy by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates — Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which stipulated that no federally funded research on gun violence prevention could promote gun control.

Subsequently, the CDC decided not to fund any research related to gun reform due to fear of retaliation from Congress, according to Dr. Linda Degutis, a lecturer of Chronic Disease Epidemiology at the School of Public Health. This led to a significant reduction in gun violence prevention research as many experts found it difficult to secure funding.

According to Dr. Guangyu Tong, an assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine and biostatistics at the School of Medicine, this lack of research especially impacted marginalized groups most affected by gun violence. 

Public health experts pressured the federal government to allow the CDC and NIH to resume research funding. After Jay Dickey, the congressman who created the Dickey Amendment, said that he made a mistake limiting federally funded gun violence prevention research, and in the aftermath of mass shootings at schools like Sandy Hook and Parkland, Congress clarified what research the CDC could support in 2019. 

“You could still talk about it, you could use their money, as long as the research didn’t call for gun control or gun reform,” Degutis said. 

In New Haven, the gun crisis is visible. According to Tong, New Haven’s neighborhoods with the highest rates of gun violence, often formerly redlined areas, experience rates ranging from 70 to 248 shootings per 100,000 people — significantly higher than the national rate of about 4.4 per 100,000. The persistent trauma experienced in these communities contributes to chronic stress, poor health outcomes and a cycle of violence.

Gun violence prevention research informs how best to structure gun violence prevention programs and laws.

According to Tong, there’s been a greater collaboration among public health, policy and academic sectors to reduce the prevalence of gun violence, as well as a growing acceptance of the public health nature of gun violence. Many are trying to build a robust research environment into gun research that could fuel various solutions to gun violence, Tong added.

“Traditionally, firearm research has relied on the expertise and funding within injury epidemiology to assess trends, identify high-risk groups, and develop preventative measures,” Tong wrote. “It not only helps identify effective intervention points but also ensures comprehensive strategies that address both immediate and long-term impacts on communities.”

The future of research funding

However, Republicans are trying to shrink the CDC as there seems to be a conservative consensus for the CDC to access programs that only deal with infectious diseases. 

The House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies has proposed the elimination of federal funding for gun violence prevention and gunshot injury research. Additionally, it has proposed eliminating funding for research that treats crimes done with firearms as part of a public health epidemic. 

“This proposal matters because it’s going to zero out all of the money not just on gun violence prevention research but also gunshot injury research,” Poole said. “So that’s not just firearm injury prevention. That’s things like traumatic brain injuries, domestic violence, and other types of injuries that have a really important impact on our society and deserve attention.”

Degutis believes some congressional Republicans want to eliminate the funding because of a belief that solutions to gun violence will impact the Constitutional right to bear arms. Additionally, some Republicans don’t view gun violence and the health impacts of the violence as a legitimate public health issue.

This proposal to the budget would need to be approved by the full House of Representatives and the Senate before it can be implemented. And because of the Democratic majority in the Senate, where most Democrats support funding gun violence prevention research, and because the session to approve the bill will be a lame duck session, Degutis believes the likelihood of the proposal being enacted is currently low. 

However, according to Poole, some form of the proposal could be enacted as both parties negotiate and make concessions in the budget adoption process. Additionally, if Trump were to win the election, he could appoint a conservative Health and Human Services secretary who has the power to refocus its priorities away from gun violence prevention without any congressional input.

“I don’t want people to say, oh, all is lost, we’re not going to have any more firearm safety research. We will,” Bechtel said. “But it might not be as robust levels of funding if the House of Representatives decides not to fund this.”

Tong said that cutting funding for gun violence research would make it harder to build a comprehensive data ecosystem during a time when big data and AI begin dominating public health and informing legislation. Other health fields already apply data from research to create proactive, effective solutions. However, gun violence research is underdeveloped due to historical funding shortages; without consistent investment, the field will lag further, according to Tong. 

According to Poole, the proposal would change the way the CDC can even present findings on gun violence. The CDC wouldn’t be able to comment on gun injury prevention, as it wouldn’t be considered a public health problem. They also wouldn’t be able to make recommendations to states and cities on legislation to curb gun violence. States, cities, and individual researchers would have to find money to fund their research on their own.

According to Bechtel, this could then once again discourage gun violence prevention research from happening in the first place. And the lack of research would fuel a lack of knowledge of not only the gun crisis but also an effective evidence-based intervention, leading to more gun violence.

“I think the rates of firearm injuries are just going to stay stagnant and maybe even increase, and we’re not going to make the great gains that we saw with motor vehicle crashes and reducing injuries and deaths from motor vehicle crashes,” Bechtel said. “More families are going to suffer, and more communities are going to suffer without gun violence prevention research.”

On Nov. 1, 2024, four people were shot in New Haven, leaving one woman in critical condition.