This year, I was selected as one of the seven American Cancer Society scholars here at Yale, as part of the Yale BioMed Amgen Scholars Program, an experience providing exceptional skills and knowledge and 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, gaining exposure to both 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 important it is for cancer patients, who, in their fight, wait with hope for a cure.

As I am excited for graduation to join a lab for a training as student researcher, before following my long dreamed path, I am now very concerned about the fate of the opportunities that used to be available for young cancer student researchers, as the NIH announces a cap on grants, regarding the indirect cost rate, or IDC, limiting it to 15 percent. 

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 percent of the total grant amount. However, some research universities such as Case Western Reserve University, Yale and Harvard have negotiated much higher rates reaching approximately 60 percent for indirect costs.

This high rate of funding has been fundamental to sustaining the success and survival of research of such world-leading universities. A change in policy 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 were struggling to maintain their labs with around 60 percent IDC funding, they now face the challenge of doing so with only 15 percent. If this policy is not revoked, scientific progress will slow, the United States’ 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.

Even if this financial crisis within the scientific community proves to be temporary, its impact will be significant, as it will halt the momentum of research; much like how COVID-19 had long-term negative effects, cuts to research funding could lead to the loss of an entire generation of researchers, which is my big 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 a real assassination of the American dream. For a very low price.

To put that 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 important and high-return investments 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 important than the impact of U.S. research and innovation to the nation and the world. This money is not “wasted” or not even spent, it is one of the best investments that add 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 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 is advocating 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 to take hope away from dying cancer patients. Many scientists trust him — now it’s time for him to trust scientists. I have hope that our President will change his mind because this is the only way to truly “Make America Great Again.”

REDA RIFFI is an American Cancer Society Scholar at Yale School of Medicine conducting brain cancer research. He is also a senior undergraduate neuroscience student researcher at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, focusing on molecular mechanisms underlying neural development and neurodegeneration with an emphasis on blood vessel formation in the brain. He can be reached at reda.riffi@yale.edu