On February 7, 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced a decision to cap indirect cost reimbursement—which supports the critical infrastructure and staff that make biomedical research possible—at 15%. In a commentary published February 28 in the Cell Press journal Cell, molecular biologist Tom Maniatis of the New York Genome Center (NYGC) and Columbia University's Zuckerman Institute reflects on the impact NIH funding has had on his own career and science, explores the value indirect investment has brought to U.S. science over the last five decades, and calls for urgent, unified action from the scientific community to prevent the cap from taking effect.
"The U.S. scientific ecosystem has long been an engine of innovation, fueled by strategic investment and collaborative effort," writes Maniatis. "We must act swiftly and decisively to safeguard the future of science in the United States and ensure that research institutions have the resources they need to continue their essential work."
Although the NIH decision has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge, it continues to raise significant concern in the scientific community because the proposed cap is significantly lower than the rate currently negotiated between the agency and many of the research institutions it funds. Maniatis was invited by Cell to share his perspective on this issue after the launch of a petition he created with his team at the NYGC; the petition has already garnered its targeted 5,000 signatures.
Maniatis believes that small, independent institutions will be harmed the most by this decision—and that that is cause for concern for everyone. In the commentary, he writes: "The NYGC has an over-decade-long history of bringing together broad, multidisciplinary collaborations … that are beyond the scope of any single institution. If the NIH indirect cost reimbursement rates are capped at 15%, small independent research institutions, like the NYGC, will be shuttered, stifling technological innovation, scientific progress, and collaboration."
His commentary also expands on the bipartisan history of the NIH, including how it has been funded over time and the impact it has had on U.S. innovation, healthcare, and economic growth. In addition to inviting the scientific community and the public to sign the NYGC petition, he suggests the following:
- Bringing together stakeholders from across universities, independent research institutes, medical centers, and professional societies to speak against this decision
- Engaging with policymakers to ensure they understand why indirect cost reimbursement exists in its current form and the consequences this decision would have
- Collaborating with industry leaders, foundations, and philanthropists to bring attention to the broader economic and societal impact of weakening the U.S. scientific enterprise
"Advances in technology and the resulting deepened understanding of human biology at the molecular level have been beyond anything we could have imagined in 1971," he writes, looking back at when he was awarded his first NIH grant. "My scientific career, and that of most scientists I know, would not have been possible without the steady support from the NIH, not only for salaries and supplies for my lab, but also providing funds to support the building, infrastructure, and utilities where my labs have been located, as well as the essential administrative support that has made our work possible."
