Voice of the Editor, The Journal of Physiology
This blog is part of our Research Roundup series, hearing from the Editors-in-Chief of our three journals, Physiology Reports, Experimental Physiology and The Journal of Physiology each month. Their blogs are featured in our Research Roundup, a monthly newsletter, summarising the recent research published in our family of journals.
Professor Kim E. Barrett
Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Physiology
This short column1 is an update of one recently published in the Voice of the Editor section in Physiology News. When I was asked to write that piece, shortly after the first of the year, I had little insight into what lay ahead. But now we have a much fuller appreciation of the disruptions to many aspects of life in the United States, which are of course more than troubling overall. However, nothing is striking me more deeply than the upheavals proposed for scientific research.
The largest funder of biomedical, and thus physiological, research in the US is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That likely makes it the most important source of funding for physiology in the world. In February, the agency appeared to be almost entirely paralysed. An initial “pause” on communications, by itself not unusual when there is a change in administration, was accompanied by abruptly cancelled grant review panels, sometimes when scientists had already begun their travel for the meetings. Council meetings, where final funding decisions are made, were also paused, along with a freeze in the award of any grants, or payments on grants already awarded. Both types of meetings are now resuming, but there has been a substantial delay to grant decisions that will inevitably lead to stalled scientific progress, and in some cases layoffs to research personnel.
Two additional developments further rocked the scientific ecosystem. First, the President issued an Executive Order banning any government activities that would support diversity, equity and inclusion. Second, the NIH issued supplemental guidance on a Friday evening that, effective essentially immediately, would limit the amount of facilities and administrative costs (F&A) to only 15% of direct costs not only for new grants, but also for ongoing payments for grants already awarded. F&A payments allow universities to establish the infrastructure needed for research as well as the personnel that (for example) manage accounts and ensure compliance with research mandates, such as human and animal subjects protections. Imagine running a physiology lab with staff, reagents and animals available, but no electricity nor freezers nor vivaria nor IACUC nor software nor administrative support to provide insight into your grant balances.
My institution is part of the University of California (UC), which collectively is the largest recipient of NIH funding in the US. It has been estimated that UC will lose at least $800M per year if the administration’s proposal to reduce F&A awards is fully implemented. It is encouraging that national organisations, including the American Association of Medical Colleges and the American Association of Universities, have now announced an effort to proactively suggest ways in which F&A costs can be calculated more transparently, to bolster public trust and understanding.
The NIH, and other agencies, have also started to terminate grant awards focused on research claimed not to “effectuate” Administration priorities, apparently on the basis of crude keyword searches and with little explanation. Countless hours are being devoted to appeal these decisions, which are unprecedented. Other consequences are ongoing. For example, institutions have moved to pause or rescind offers for PhD admissions for the fall. Early career investigators, who may have spent years gathering the preliminary data for a competitive grant proposal, are seeing their research plans left in limbo, and are considering whether a research career is viable. Institutions are weighing tough choices in deciding whether, if at all, they can fund the infrastructure needed for state-of-the-art research. And those traditionally underrepresented in the biomedical workforce are seeing, once again, that the system may be stacked against them. Indeed, a large survey recently conducted by Nature revealed that as many as 75% of scientists who responded to the poll are considering moving outside the US to continue their research careers.
I recognise that The Journal of Physiology is a UK-based, international venue for the publication of the best physiological research, and that many readers of this message are based outside the United States. But the US has long been the primary source of both submissions and research papers for The Journal, and any reduction in US research output could hurt not only The Journal’s viability, but also that of The Physiological Society. In addition, many of our readers and authors have robust collaborations that span across countries and time zones, and the international mobility of scientists means that US-trained investigators are a critical component of the research enterprise in many countries.
Indeed, had my life taken a different turn, I would have returned to the UK after my postdoctoral training in the US, adding new expertise and experiences to strengthen the system. It therefore falls on all of us to push back where we can when research is threatened, and also to explain the value of investing in biomedical research to our families, friends and neighbours, especially in terms of new treatments and cures. Those of us in the US hope we can count on this worldwide support.
1Please note that I am writing this column as Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Physiology, and in my personal capacity. It should not be interpreted to represent the position of the University of California, Davis, nor that of the University of California system. The views do not necessarily reflect those of The Physiological Society.