Washington, D.C. – In a controversial move, the Trump administration has suspended an essential component of the research funding mechanism overseen by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), putting a significant amount of scientific work on hold. This action seems to directly contradict a federal court’s temporary restraining order, which was set to prevent any freezes on federal funding.
The NIH’s routine process involves holding study sections, where scientists review grant proposals for researching various medical issues from cancer to aging. However, it was revealed that submissions for these reviews to the Federal Register have been indefinitely paused by orders from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). According to legal guidelines, such meetings must be announced on the register 15 days before they occur.
Jeremy Berg, a genetic scientist and former NIH official, stressed the importance of these sessions, stating that the public deserves transparency regarding who advises the government and the timing of these meetings. With the halt in the registration process, critical meetings have been postponed, impacting researchers nationwide.
Carole LaBonne, a biologist at Northwestern University, argued that this administrative freeze effectively shuts down the extramural research program. Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, labeled the halt a clear defiance of judicial orders. He referenced Judge John McConnell’s follow-up order demanding an immediate lift on any pauses in federal funding, along with removing any administrative barriers to fund distribution.
If the administration continues to defy these judicial mandates, Bagenstos mentioned that courts could impose more direct sanctions on individuals causing the violations, including civil contempt charges, which could lead to imprisonment and cannot be nullified by a presidential pardon.
Each study section brings over 20 peer reviewers together to evaluate up to 100 different research proposals. Jeremy Berg noted that preparing for these reviews could involve up to two weeks of intensive work per reviewer. These sections are not only critical for advancing medical research but also for the allocation of approximately $1 billion in NIH funding for every three days they are delayed. A planned meeting was abruptly cancelled the day before it was set to begin on February 20th, catching many participants off-guard and unprepared.
Participants and other sources have expressed frustration and confusion over the procedural delays, with some viewing them as indirect tactics to undermine medical science. The lack of formal cancellations until the last possible moment suggests that NIH staff are still hopeful the meetings will proceed by some means.
Stuart Buck, a Harvard Law graduate and head of the Good Science Project, remarked that deciphering the administration’s strategic intents from these actions is challenging. He criticized the preliminary implementation of such drastic policies without clear leadership at NIH. Jay Bhattacharya, who is appointed by Trump to head the NIH, has yet to have a confirmation hearing.
Further implications of the delays include potential loss of scientific progress on essential and time-sensitive research. Labs risk closure if funding does not arrive in time to continue operations, putting significant strain on the scientific community.
The NIH’s press office has not yet responded to requests for comment.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. The individuals, facts, circumstances, and the storyline may be inaccurate. Any requests for article removals, retractions, or corrections can be emailed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.