Sen. Collins Calls Proposed Cuts to Biomedical Research Funding ‘Inexplicable’

Q&A on Impact of Indirect Costs on Biomedical Research

Click HERE to watch and HERE to download.

Q&A on Funding for Diabetes Research

Click HERE to watch and HERE to download.

Washington, D.C. - At a hearing to review the 2027 budget request for National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, criticized the Administration's proposed cuts to biomedical research funding and one-size-fits-all cap on indirect research costs. Sen. Collins stressed that recent breakthroughs in clinical trials and diabetes research demonstrate the need for sustained investment.

Q&A on Impact of Indirect Costs on Biomedical Research

Sen. Collins: There are some budget issues that I find to be inexplicable in some ways, and I do want to discuss some of those with you today. In fiscal year 2025, the NIH awarded more than $120 million in grants and contracts to entities in my home state of Maine. This funding directly supported 1,378 jobs and more than $280 million in economic activity. I mentioned that because there is an economic impact to the research that we're doing, as well as an impact on the health and well-being of Americans.

This funding has also led to very exciting developments, such as a clinical trial for a new Lyme disease vaccine, and another clinical trial investigating how GLP-1 drugs could be used to treat long COVID. Really exciting developments. Breakthroughs like these can only be sustained if research institutions are able to cover this cost, yet the Administration's budget request once again proposes a 15 percent arbitrary, across-the-board cap for indirect research costs after Congress specifically blocked a similar proposal last year.

Such a cap would negatively affect cutting-edge research happening at universities, nonprofit laboratories, medical centers around the country, and undermine the foundation of our nation's global leadership in biomedical research and technological innovation. Doctor, we discussed the FAIR Model and other alternatives last year to have more accountability, increase transparency on indirect costs that are funded with taxpayer dollars. I would like to ask you, whether you have a specific proposal for improving the current indirect cost system without adopting this one-size-fits-all, arbitrary, very harmful cap across the board.

Dir. Bhattacharya : Senator, we absolutely remain committed to making sure that the research institutions of this country receive the support that they need to have the success that you described. I'm really grateful that you started with examples of potential vaccine for Lyme disease, GLP-1s for so many different uses, and so much more. I'm sure you could have gone on for a very long time.

The key thing that I'd love to have happen - I'm going to convene a committee of my advisory committee director, so that we can discuss this openly, and is a proposal to delink - to allow competition, free and open competition for the facilities money that the NIH has for institutions. The key idea is that right now, in order for Maine and other places to win the facility support, you have to have excellent scientists that win the grants, and linked to that is the facilities money. But in order to have people win the grants in the first place, you have to attract the great scientists to your facility. You have to have great facilities.

This catch-22 guarantees that our investments in institutions will be concentrated. Twenty institutions get about a third of our facility support. We need to fix that, and I'd love to work with you all, and I know we've had such great conversations about this, to delink this connection, and then allow there to be sort of more open competition for the facilities money by places like Maine, like Kansas. I visited so many of these great institutions across the country, where there's so many great scientists. We need to make it easier to build up facilities. NIH is like seed money for these places. Once you invest, once we invest, you get other foundations investing as well. And I want to work with you to launch essentially a renaissance of biomedical research across the country, where we just have a couple of super biomedical hubs, but everywhere across the country, where there are amazing scientific ideas, people should be able to get support for it.

Q&A on Funding for Diabetes Research

Sen. Collins: Dr. Rodgers, it's great to see you again. Although I don't think this hearing will be quite as moving and inspiring as the Children's Congress hearing at which you testified last summer. Seeing all those delegates with Type 1 diabetes from across the country, including little, six-year old Caroline from the state of Maine, who traveled to share her story, was truly moving. Recent Type 1 diabetes research funded by NIH has led to some exciting developments, and clinical trial data resulting from NIH funding Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium has contributed to FDA's approval of the first ever stem cell treatment for type 1 diabetes, and I realize the clinical trials have been small so far, but it is so exciting that after receiving this treatment, 10 out of 12 patients in clinical trials no longer needed insulin.

That is extraordinary. Therefore, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the budget would propose $167 million cut for your institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. By contrast, we have increased funding for the Special Diabetes Program, but this is the last point at which we should be cutting funding for biomedical research, for your institute. Given that we're finally seeing real progress, could you please comment on this?

Dr. Rodgers: Sure, Senator Collins. First of all, thank you for your ongoing support for the Special Diabetes Program, and yours and your colleagues. This has really led to some major breakthroughs in the way that people in this country with type 1 diabetes have enjoyed long and very, the quality of life has changed dramatically. You mentioned the first ever FDA-approved stem cell treatment, transplantation, but also the first drug under your watch, teplizumab, which can delay the onset of Type 1 diabetes by at least three or more years, and also it was at SDA SDP support that's responsible for five of the six commercially available artificial pancreas technologies, and these are now being applied in many other areas.

A reduction in funding will have consequences, of course. We'd have to either delay or postpone many of our efforts, including our trial net effort, which was actually the vehicle which led to this approval, ultimately of the first drug to delay the onset, and we're right on the cusp of understanding what the environmental determinants of diabetes in youth are: the so-called TEDDY study. We're right at that point where we're in an intense data analysis phase. This could certainly delay that to some extent. Nonetheless, we're very thankful for what we get, and we'll make the appropriate adjustments as necessary to ensure that all of our funding goes out as required by the law. Thank you.

###