The impact of the changing landscape of NIH funding for the cancer prevention and control research enterprise

Abstract

Recent changes in the National Institutes of Health’s grant policies have eliminated publicly posted paylines or cutoffs for funding decisions. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget proposed rules that would reshape funding by expanding political oversight. These changes would allow political appointees to assess grants based on alignment with administration-aligned priorities and national interests and suspend or terminate awards viewed as inconsistent with those priorities. Additional proposals would prohibit federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and gender ideology and transitions. In this commentary, the Big 10 Population Science Working Group outlines the challenges and impacts to funding research from the perspective of population scientists. Three key challenges are the prioritization of federal administration-deemed acceptable scientific topics, the expanded role of political appointees in funding decisions, and reduced funding and delays. Impacts include a reduction in the pace of discovery that has made the US a leader in science and medicine, less research conducted at institutions receiving federal funding, and reductions in the scientific workforce and pipeline. We conclude that incorporating criteria beyond scientific merit and public health priorities increases the potential for scientifically meritorious grants to be awarded. This disruption threatens faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion, erodes the scientific pipeline, and diminishes capacity to generate evidence that improves population health. Addressing these problems will require coordinated and sustained advocacy to maintain the strength of the research enterprise. Adoption of these policies risks a decline in advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, survivorship, and population health.