I’ve been a research scientist (RSE-4) at the University of Washington for 21 years, working on projects identifying genetic causes of autism, learning disabilities, and most recently Alzheimer’s Disease. This vital work could not continue without the help of administrative staff, and university support of our labs and computer systems. All of these critical support functions are funded by indirect costs. Capping indirect costs at the low rate of 15% will destroy the research capability of my lab, our university, and many others across the country. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!  The US has been at the forefront of global medical science for years – we should be proud of this.

My name is Conner Sessions, and I am a Research Scientist at the University of Washington

Our lab is mainly translational medicine dedicated to the study and treatments of Prostate and bladder cancers. Cancer does not discriminate against political lines but it does discriminate against those who are ill prepared to face its ever-changing nature. Should this administration bulldoze the funding that we get from the NIH by instituting a 15% cap on indirect costs, then our research scope will dwindle. We have one of the longest running and oldest rapid warm autopsy programs in the country. Imagine if the data we have been collecting since 1993 was gone from this world forever because the facility where we keep our mice and the overhead that we have to pay to upkeep our mice disappears forever. That is what this cap would mean.

Because our translational medical research receives significant funding from the Department of Defense, I worry that their shortsighted cost-cutting measures could lead to the dissolution of DoD research funding, shifting the responsibility to the NIH. This would put us at even greater risk of losing our lab, our jobs, and, ultimately, lives due to the potential halt of biomedical research.

Our indirect costs include, but are not limited to, the following: utilities (electricity, water, and lighting); facilities for both lab space and the animal vivarium; machinery maintenance and purchases; reagents for preclinical drug trials; staff holiday, PTO, and sick time; computers and IT support; instrument upkeep; office and paper supplies; animals for colony passages of specific lines; tissue culture media; liquid nitrogen and compressed carbon dioxide for cryopreservation and tissue culture, respectively; outsourcing of tissue processing for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples; review and approval from outside entities for protocol deviations as needed; environmental health and safety inspections and recommendations; and facility modifications for health and safety compliance or protocol-directed requirements.

Much of what we do is considered indirect research, even though it directly facilitates our primary research efforts. If the proposed 15% cap is implemented, it will cause irreparable damage to this country’s first line of defense against emerging diseases.

I’m a cancer researcher working night and day to develop better treatments for the most difficult and deadly types of cancer. We’ve made a key discovery that we think can dramatically improve the lives of patients with severe skin cancers, lung cancers, colon cancers, and more, but bringing this discovery to patients will require complex and well-maintained facilities with significant shared resources and technologies. The proposed changes at the NIH hobble our research institute’s ability to pay for leases on high-tech laboratory spaces and bring our promising new treatment approach to cancer patients. More broadly, the proposed changes are a direct and public attack on cancer research that would harm patients and undercut the foundation of American leadership in scientific research. We must protect cancer research in America.

My name is Mark Wiley and I am a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Washington with a PhD in Biomedical Sciences. I have dedicated 12 years of my life to improving therapeutics available to individuals in several diseases including obesity, parasitic infections, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer. My work has led to the development of a new drug that is being prepared for clinical trials in acute pancreatitis. Continuing this work is paramount to improving the lives of countless individuals as we provide the foundational data necessary to justify the performance of clinical trials, which lead to the development of life-saving drugs. Indeed, many of the preclinical models that we use for our research have been critical in putting together an Investigational New Drug application through the FDA.

Cutting indirect costs to the University of Washington down to 15% will not result in a simple pruning of staff and supplies that are not considered to be essential. Instead, we will lose our ability to perform animal work at this institution which will virtually halt any and all translatable research. This will lead to a massive disruption in the work flow that drives bench to bedside research. 

In short, I implore you to please reconsider such a large cut to the indirect costs to NIH grants, as this will destroy the lives of millions of patients and researchers. Research has become one of the backbones of the American economy and it cannot be dismantled without disastrous economic implications.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is among the deadliest cancers, with a five-year survival rate below 10%, and is projected to be the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. by 2030. Each year, over one million Americans are diagnosed with new-onset diabetes (NOD), a known PDAC risk factor, yet universal screening is not feasible due to high costs and inefficiencies. My research develops statistical methods to improve early detection in a clinically practical and cost-effective way by integrating biomarkers and risk models. The models we develop rely heavily on computing resources — funded through indirect costs on grants. With a 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH grants, progress toward an early detection strategy will be severely hindered, delaying life-saving interventions.

My name is Ada de la Cruz, and I am a Research Scientist at UW Medicine in the Department of Immunology. 

I study human lung pathology in relation to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). It is critical for public health, as Mtb is the leading cause of death among infectious diseases—more than HIV and malaria combined. Although Mtb is preventable and curable, the lack of resources exacerbates its spread.

The work I do is vital for developing a more robust understanding of this deadly disease and for creating modern therapeutics. I emphasize the importance of this research not just for developing nations, but also for Americans. Just a few weeks ago, there was an Mtb outbreak in Kansas, demonstrating that this disease is far from being a thing of the past for us.

Indirect costs are essential for maintaining budgeting teams that ensure labs stay on track with spending, administrative staff who manage logistics behind the scenes, and the basic maintenance required for vivariums to keep animal subjects comfortable. We also rely on shared building facilities, such as CO2 and HVAC systems, for our work. 

Restricting indirect costs in current and future budgets without engaging universities in negotiations will lead to panic, layoffs, and significant delays or even the destruction of ongoing projects that benefit millions of people, both directly and indirectly. It is imperative that Congress and the legislative branches reverse these restrictions and allow universities to negotiate indirect costs to ensure the continued advancement of science.

NIH-funded academic research is the primary driver of American innovation in biotechnology and pharmaceutical sciences, with every dollar spent leading to an estimated $2.46 in economic activity. Here at the University of Washington, our lab has used these funds to generate exciting new discoveries into the neurobiological basis of addiction and substance use disorders. My NIH funded research has centered around investigating how cannabinoid compounds (extracted from cannabis) help to ameliorate symptoms of withdrawal from opioid drugs, which is a key driver of relapse and continuing addiction to opioids.  It is important to note that the ‘indirect costs’ received by the University of Washington from these grants plays an integral role in facilitating this research by supporting fundamental operational costs such as electricity, animal care, and facilities upkeep.  The recent ordinance proposed by the NIH would see an effective decrease of almost 70% to these integral funds that make academic research possible both at the University of Washington and throughout the United States.

In my lab, I dedicate myself to understanding how environmental factors and oxidative stress can lead to serious health issues, such as adverse birth outcomes and chronic diseases like Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and liver disease. My goal is to uncover the root causes of these conditions and find ways to prevent and treat them, ultimately improving the lives of many.

By combining various fields like biochemistry, environmental health, neurobiology, and medicine, my research provides a comprehensive view of how these diseases develop. This approach helps us identify important markers of exposure and disease, as well as potential targets for new treatments.

However, without adequate funding, this crucial work could be significantly hindered. Reduced financial support in the form of a cap on indirect costs would limit our ability to conduct in-depth studies, potentially delaying the discovery of new treatments and preventive measures. Continued investment is essential to ensure we can keep making progress in improving public health and preventing these serious diseases.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the most urgent public health crises of the modern age. By 2050, 10 million people are expected to die EACH YEAR due to antibiotic resistance. I have a grant application which specifically seeks to develop a promising new family of drugs to fight antibiotic resistance. This grant was due to be reviewed Jan. 28, but is now in limbo because of the freeze. The cap on indirects further endangers our ability to do this research, and if not addressed, this work and knowledge will be lost, either to global competitors, or entirely.

In our lab, we study endocytosis: the process in which the cell membrane folds in on itself to bring substances into the cell. Endocytosis is not only important for healthy cell function, but this is also the process that gets high-jacked by viruses such as HIV and COVID-19. I am a research scientist and lab manager, so part of my work involves making sure that this research can happen: I order lab supplies, coordinate inspections for lab safety, get our equipment certified and our research approved by the ethical board (we work with human cells), and so much more that would not be possible if indirect costs are limited!

My team is developing low-cost PCR detection systems designed for deployment in low-resource settings. Our research focuses on major diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and influenza, with the goal of providing accessible, life-changing diagnostics to communities that need them most. Reduced indirect costs will significantly affect our ability to continue this work, limiting innovation and delaying critical advancements in global health.

As a Statistician I support research in many subject areas. Primarily, HIV research will be disrupted and some of our discoveries will be halted due to the limited indirect costs allowed. Much of our work is around prevention and treatment, so beyond understanding effective strategies, there will be harm to individuals that rely on regular testing and drug access connected to the research being done. Trying to fully understand the ripples of effects is inconceivable. Public health and infectious disease research benefits all US citizens and humans all across the world.

My lab is currently working on a variety of projects, most of which pertain to women during pregnancy. The big project we are working on that has gotten a huge breakthrough lately, is working on a treatment or vaccine for a strain of Strep that can form in the uterus and causes pre-term labor (and often miscarriages). The lab has successfully discovered a drug that seems to work on mitigating this strain of Strep and quickly resolves the early labor contractions once they start up. The next part of this would be to test the treatment/vaccine for this and develop the best route of administration in humans. This would be a huge improvement for a pregnancy complication that can cause miscarriages, which in many states would also now put women on trial for murder given the recent laws passed in some states. These studies cannot continue and develop on (especially into clinical trials) without the proper funding.

The recent directive limiting indirect research costs will have devastating consequences for any lab receiving NIH funding. I am a research scientist in one such lab; my research focuses on antibiotic testing against shigella, a disease which kills over 200,000 people per year and inflicts many more with moderate to severe illness. This new directive will impact our lab’s ability to ensure proper equipment maintenance and calibration, provide power and water to our lab, and even keep our lab space. Needless to say, indirect costs are a crucial part of research and are not considered lightly. This new directive is reprehensibly reckless and threatens the work of labs across the nation doing research on very real and present threats. It disregards the expertise of people who understand these costs and constitutes a blatant attack on the scientific community as a whole. I urge you to consider the health of our most vulnerable populations and the devastating effect this will have on them, and I urge you to refuse to be complicit in the deaths and illnesses this will cause.

I design studies to evaluate rapid diagnostic tests, especially in rural health settings, to speed up diagnoses and bring testing closer to places where people receive care. Funding for indirect costs are critical to support the infrastructure necessary for evaluating tests in rural areas. Indirects enable our university to maintain the systems of research—IRBs, regulatory compliance, subcontracts, hiring, safety monitoring, IT software to manage research data safely and securely—and to partner with health systems who otherwise wouldn’t have capacity to participate in research. It is really important to engage rural health settings in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests to make sure that point-of-care tests work for the people and communities who actually need these tests the most. Cutting indirects will stymie the development of these life-saving tests, forcing researchers, care providers, and health system partners to build infrastructure from scratch with every new study.

Tuberculosis is the deadliest infectious disease globally, and my research aims to uncover critical host mechanisms that determine infection outcomes within immune cells. Without funding for indirect costs, I would lose access to essential resources like elevated biosafety labs (BSL3), specialized shared equipment crucial for studying immune cells, and powerful supercomputers that streamline and enhance my research. Cutting funding for indirect costs would disrupt the entire research infrastructure, leaving many labs and institutions unable to sustain vital work, and ultimately dethrone the United States as a dominant leader in the global biotech industry.

Coronary artery disease remains one of the leading causes of mortality and loss of disability-adjusted life-years globally. Therefore, the prevention and early detection of atherosclerosis, or the narrowing and hardening of the arteries, is crucial to alleviating this burden of disease. My research involves using data from a decades-long, nation-wide, NHLBI-funded cohort study to carry out statistical analyses that help clinicians better understand how atherosclerosis develops, characterize its various risk factors, and discover how these factors relate to the risk of coronary artery disease. Massive cohort studies like these, that have contributed to countless developments in understanding and preventing heart disease, are made possible by the facilities, personnel, computing power, and researchers that the NIH funds. A 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH grants will slow down the pace of heart research in the US, allow other countries to overtake us in research impact, and pose an existential threat to the ongoing cohort studies that are crucial to understanding and preventing heart disease. 

We all have a loved one whose life has been severely limited or cut short by a neurological disorder—for me, it was my Aunt Ruth. Contributing to Alzheimer’s disease research during my PhD has been my way of honoring the impact she had on my life, as well as the lives of her family, my dad, and countless others she touched. Working to treat the millions of Americans already diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and developing public health interventions to prevent millions more cases is why I pursued a PhD. However, the proposed cuts to funding for research overhead threaten my lab’s ability to pursue this goal, forcing us to shift our focus from high-quality scientific research to simply keeping the lights on. Please consider the consequences this policy will have—not just on the research community in the United States, but on the long-term health of ourselves, our families, and our communities.

The work in my PhD has centered on developing 3D models of colon cancer, the third most common cancer-related cause of death in the USA. To date, most biomedical research is done on 2D tissue culture plates (if you can imagine a generic picture of a scientist staring at a flask), which misses the crucial three-dimensional architecture of the body. It has been demonstrated that this 3D structure made up of many proteins and sugars, known as the extracellular matrix, drives cancer invasion and progression. Using natural and synthetic polymers, we aim to recreate this environment in the lab, to better understand how biochemical and mechanical properties of the matrix affect colon cancer progression by isolating these specific properties in a controlled manner. In the future, a better understanding of these drivers of disease could inform improved pharmaceutical targets. Having personally seen how this disease ravages family members and other friends, I am driven to better understand the fundamental mechanisms underlying causes of this disease. As I continue progressing in my scientific career, I will be pursuing a post doctoral fellowship to better understand how obesity induces changes to the extracellular matrix and how this encourages breast cancer metastasis. NIH support has enabled me to continue my work through training grants, as well as larger scale grants; cutting the indirect costs, while seemingly inconspicuous, drastically undercuts the support and facilities needed to conduct this research. Our advances in basic biomedical sciences have put us ahead of the world in the biotechnology sphere. Cutting spending will only hurt our country.

I’m a senior research scientist at the University of Washington Virology Laboratory. If you go to the doctor in western WA and get tested for mpox (monkeypox) or suspected H5N1 influenza, chances are your sample will be tested by our clinical lab using an assay that my team designed and validated. And you will be charged a lot less for that test than if you’d gotten tested by one of the big commercial lab companies. We have the ability to do this work because we have University of Washington facilities and support, and these are partially funded through indirect costs from research grants. Outside of the University, we’d have to function like a commercial testing lab, skipping all the advanced assay design and validation that enables patients to actually get tested for emerging diseases.

We do more than design new clinical tests: we also run clinical trials for new antiviral drugs and for new rapid commercial testing methods. If you’ve been tested for SARS-CoV-2 or Influenza at a doctor’s office in the last two years, there’s a good chance that test was run on a platform that was FDA-approved in part because we helped prove it worked. I’m proud of the work we’ve done on these trials, but it’s the development of new clinical assays that has the most immediate impact for taxpayers and my fellow Washingtonians, and that’s what I’m most proud of. And it’s that work that is most vulnerable to cuts to NIH indirect costs.

My research is focused on human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, an innovative healthcare delivery method that enables patients to complete their cervical cancer screening at home. With cervical cancer screening rates declining in the United States over the past 20 years, identifying and implementing new technologies to promote screening uptake is essential — particularly since the majority of cervical cancers are diagnosed in unscreened and underscreened patients. My research utilizes data from an NIH-funded trial to answer critical questions about the impacts and utility of HPV self-sampling within the American healthcare system. Funding for indirect costs supports the infrastructure that allowed this fundamental trial to establish the efficacy of self-sampling in the United States, and ultimately allows me to continue my work answering important questions that will protect the health of and prevent cervical cancer in the American public for years to come.

NIH funding through my T32 training grant is what makes my PhD research possible. My work focuses on understanding how polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) increases the risk of type 2 diabetes and pancreatic cancer, two major public health challenges. This support has provided me with the training and resources to address critical gaps in women’s health and metabolic disease, helping to uncover how this complex condition contributes to chronic illness and how we can better intervene. Investing in early-career researchers like me drives scientific progress in the United States, and without this funding, advancing research on underrecognized conditions like PCOS would be far, far more difficult.

Many widely prescribed drugs for conditions such as depression and overactive bladder have been linked to an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. My research explores the molecular mechanisms through which these medications cause dysregulation in human brain cells. By deepening our understanding of their mechanism of action, I aim to provide critical insights for pharmaceutical scientists, guiding the development of more effective and, most importantly, safe treatments for the public.

My research is made possible through funding from the NIH, which has provided the resources to work with numerous rare and delicate patient samples, collaborate with other scientific groups to further our research, and enable valuable opportunities to present and discuss our work at international conferences— essential aspects of scientific research.As someone who recently transitioned into the Alzheimer’s field from basic life science research, the NIH funding support has also made it possible for me to get a proper training to conduct translational research, and I intend to use these acquired skills for the betterment of public health.

I am Jeremy Hollis, an academic student researcher with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, WA. My work aims to understand the root causes of inflammatory bowel diseases, a collection of debilitating autoimmune disorders that affect upwards of 2% of Americans. These diseases are historically incredibly hard to treat- we have an extremely limited understanding of their causes, they are difficult to study, and we’ve only recently found routes to treatment that are promising yet frequently fail due to unknown causes. We are uniquely poised to solve this problem at a renowned, NIH-funded nonprofit research center like the Fred Hutch. We have access to rare patient samples, established consortia that facilitate fast and easy collaboration, and world-class shared equipment that make groundbreaking research our daily reality- research that is impossible in the private sector. Simply put, our resources are entirely dependent on NIH indirect funding. Indirect costs are the financial backbone of the Fred Hutch’s efficiency and innovation, and my work would not be successful without them. Reducing indirect rates to 15% would slow our work by years, dramatically increasing costs and negatively affecting millions of American lives.

My name is Elena Romero and I am a 5th year graduate student working at the University of Washington. I research HIV and how it evolves within individual people. Currently, I am analyzing results from previous clinical trials of HIV treatments to understand how HIV was able to evolve and escape these treatments. This knowledge will help us design better HIV treatments which could help people for whom existing treatments have failed or who may not be able to tolerate traditional treatments. This work is made possible by funding from the NIH. Without such work conducting trials and analysing their data, we not only risk the health of the people these medications could help, but we also limit our tools for combating multi-drug resistant HIV.

My research focuses on developing novel cancer treatments by targeting viral sequences in our genomes, legacies of ancient viral infections that can be reactivated in cancer patients. We are working tirelessly to find new therapies for patients who do not respond to current treatments or experience relapse. However, cuts to the NIH’s indirect funding will have disastrous consequences for scientific infrastructure and will severely impede the progress of our research. Without sufficient funding, essential resources—such as lab facilities, utilities, and equipment, in addition to basic cleaning, maintenance, and administrative services—will be at risk, directly hindering the work required to discover innovative cancer treatments. Research into novel cancer therapies could be delayed or abandoned, leaving patients without the life-saving treatments they so desperately need while worsening the economic burden on our already fragile healthcare system. As scientific institutions face layoffs and mounting financial pressure, the ability to focus on research will diminish, reducing the time and energy available for critical breakthroughs. Moreover, if research centers are forced to charge scientists for basic needs like rent and utilities, it will create an unsustainable environment where science cannot thrive; the US will lose top researchers to institutions in other countries. Research cannot be conducted in isolation—it requires fundamental support to drive progress and bring life-saving innovations to the forefront, support that is gravely jeopardized by these cuts.

More than half of children with rare genetic disorders never find out exactly what causes their condition. My NIH-funded research uses a new type of DNA test to uncover hidden genetic problems that other tests miss, and then examines how and why these problems cause disease using stem cells made from patients’ blood. By finally pinpointing why these children are sick, doctors and researchers can design better, faster treatments—without forcing families to go through multiple expensive, time-consuming, stressful tests. Without sufficient federal funding for research like mine, these families will remain in medical limbo, often long enough that a child’s life is tragically and unnecessarily lost.