What We Lose by Cutting Research Funding in the U.S.A. 

Budgets
Written By Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

By Michael Bronfman, June 10, 2025

Author assisted by AI

Cutting Research Funding

This week, The Guard Rail is proud to feature a crucial topic impacting the very foundation of innovation in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries. This comes on the heels of ongoing discussions about the importance of sustained investment in research and development. Our latest post, "What We Lose by Cutting Research Funding in the U.S.A.," delves into the far-reaching consequences of diminishing public funding for scientific endeavors. Please let us know what you think.

Science isn’t self-sustaining. It needs fuel, and that fuel is funding. 

For decades, the United States has led the world in biomedical innovation, powered by long-term investment in public research infrastructure. Institutions like the NIH, NSF, and CDC have been cornerstones of medical progress and global health preparedness. But that leadership is slipping. Research budgets are flattening or declining in real dollars, while political instability further threatens their continuity.

In biopharma, where product pipelines rely on early-stage discovery science, this isn’t just a government problem. It’s an industry crisis in the making.

 Slower Drug Discovery and Development

Fact: Every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2016 was linked to publicly funded research. Biopharma companies rely on foundational science to guide their pipelines, but they rarely fund that science directly. The risk is too high and the payoff too far off. It’s public institutions that decode disease mechanisms, identify new drug targets, and lay the groundwork for innovative therapies.1

Cuts to NIH funding don’t just slow university research—they erode the pipeline feeding the next generation of breakthrough medicines.

Weakened Global Competitiveness

STAT: China now leads the world in total scientific publications and is rapidly closing the gap in high-impact research.(Source: Nature Index, 2023)2 While U.S. funding stagnates, China and the EU are aggressively investing in research. China, in particular, has made biomedical innovation a national priority, pouring billions into AI in drug discovery, gene editing, and translational medicine. As funding dries up at home, U.S. scientists—especially early-career researchers—are lured by more stable prospects abroad. That includes faculty appointments, lab funding, and full-stack innovation ecosystems. Innovation is global. If the U.S. doesn’t lead, someone else will.

Loss of Talent and the “Leaky Pipeline”

STAT: Less than 17% of U.S. biomedical PhDs secure tenure-track positions.(Source: NIH Biomedical Workforce Report, 2021) 

“Nowadays, less than 17% of new PhDs in science, engineering and health-related fields find tenure-track positions within 3 years after graduation (National Science Foundation, 2012; Chapter 3). Many PhDs who do not find tenure-track positions turn to positions outside academia. Others who think that they will have better future opportunities accept relatively low-paying academic jobs such as postdoctoral positions and stay in the market for a prolonged period (Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2013). Many engineering PhDs go the entrepreneurial route and become involved in startups or work in national research labs or commercial R&D centres. But our focus is academia.”

Science takes a long time. Researchers spend over a decade training before leading independent labs. But the bottleneck isn’t talent—it’s funding.

When grant paylines fall and budgets shrink, postdocs and junior faculty face fewer opportunities. Many leave academia entirely. Others go overseas. This brain drain disproportionately impacts women and underrepresented minorities, who face systemic disadvantages and less funding security.

Losing these scientists means losing not just skill, but diversity of thought—and long-term industry innovation.

Fewer Breakthroughs in Rare and Neglected Diseases

STAT: 50% of rare disease research projects rely heavily on NIH funding. (Source: NIH Office of Rare Diseases Research)3 Pharma’s ROI models don’t always support research in areas with small patient populations. Rare diseases, neglected tropical illnesses, and pediatric cancers often fall outside commercial viability. Public funding fills this gap—fueling the early science, infrastructure, and data that eventually enable therapies. The first gene therapies, mRNA vaccines, and targeted oncology platforms were born out of public research on “unprofitable” conditions. Cutting funding abandons these patients—and the innovation that often follows from solving hard, overlooked problems.

Delayed Preparedness for Future Pandemics

STAT: NIH invested over $700M in coronavirus research before COVID-19 emerged.(Source: Congressional Research Service, 2021)4 The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines didn’t happen overnight. It was built on decades of NIH-funded virology, structural biology, and RNA delivery research. Agencies like BARDA and DARPA took the financial and technological risks long before private companies stepped in. The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines succeeded because the science—and the funding—was ready. Cutting infectious disease research now will leave us vulnerable to the next pandemic. Public health readiness can’t be “turned on” in a crisis—it must be sustained year-round.

A Fragile Clinical Trial Ecosystem

STAT: Over 40% of U.S. clinical trials are led or supported by NIH, VA, or academic medical centers.(Source: ClinicalTrials.gov data analysis, 2023)

“The claim that over 40% of U.S. clinical trials are led or supported by the NIH, VA, or academic medical centers is supported by multiple sources.

NIH's Role in Clinical Trials

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research in the United States. In 2024, more than 80% of its $47 billion budget was allocated to support research, including clinical trials, at over 2,500 scientific institutions. Notably, 60% of this extramural research occurred at academic medical center campuses. (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, aamc.org)

VA's Contribution to Clinical Trials

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) also plays a significant role in clinical research. Through its Office of Research and Development, the VA supports numerous clinical trials. As of November 2023, approximately 932,000 veterans were enrolled or expected to be enrolled in studies funded by the VA. (en.wikipedia.org, congress.gov)

Academic Medical Centers and Clinical Trials

Academic medical centers are integral to the U.S. clinical trial landscape. Institutions like Massachusetts General Hospital and Stanford University collaborate with the VA and NIH, contributing to a substantial number of clinical trials. (journals.lww.com)”

Private pharma drives large-scale, late-phase trials. But early-phase, rare disease, and non-commercial trials rely heavily on public funding and academic infrastructure.

From the Cancer Moonshot to the All of Us initiative, federal investment creates platforms and protocols that benefit the entire ecosystem. Without that scaffolding, trials become slower, more expensive, and riskier for sponsors.

When government funding falters, it’s not just public labs that lose—it’s the entire translational pipeline.

Reduced Return on Public Investment

STAT: Every $1 of NIH funding generates over $8.38 in economic activity.(Source: United for Medical Research, 2020)6

Research isn’t charity, it’s investment. From university spinouts to biotech accelerators, public science creates real economic value. This includes IP generation, job creation, tax revenue, and long-term cost savings in healthcare.

Cutting research funding doesn’t save money—it sacrifices return. And once lost, scientific momentum is hard to regain. Labs close. Talent relocates. Innovation stalls.

We’re not just undermining future therapies—we’re eroding the base of an entire innovation economy.

Erosion of Scientific Literacy and Trust

STAT: Public trust in science has dropped by 10+ points since 2020, especially among younger (U.S.) Americans.(Source: Pew Research, 2023)7

Public research supports more than lab benches—it funds data-sharing, transparency, education, and outreach. From open-access journals to science museums and K–12 programs, public science is a social good.

Without investment, we lose more than knowledge. We lose shared understanding. That void gets filled by misinformation, distrust, and anti-scientific sentiment—especially in an era of rapid technological change.

A well-funded, transparent research ecosystem builds trust, and trust saves lives.

Final Thoughts: Innovation Requires Stability

Cutting research funding may seem like a short-term budget fix. But the long-term cost is far higher.

We lose:

  • Therapies that never make it to trials.

  • Scientists who leave the field.

  • Competitive edge in a global biotech arms race.

  • Preparedness for emerging diseases.

  • Public trust in health science.

The U.S. has always been a leader because it invested in being one. That’s not guaranteed. Leadership in science is a choice—a policy decision. One that affects every sector of pharma, from discovery to market.

If you’re in biopharma, policy, or research, your voice matters.

Support stable, bipartisan investment in:

  • NIH, NSF, and BARDA budgets

  • Early-career research funding

  • Open science infrastructure

  • Translational and rare disease initiatives

Let’s ensure the U.S. remains a place where great science thrives—and where public funding continues to fuel private innovation for decades to come.

Let’s continue the conversation.

What impact have you seen from federal research funding in your work? What do we risk losing? Drop a comment or share this post to keep science at the center of policy.

Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson
Next

The Resurgence of Measles: A Wake-Up Call for Global Public Health and Pharma