Odd Lots Podcast Summary
Episode: "Trump's NIH Cuts Send Shockwaves Through the Science World"
Release Date: March 8, 2025

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Bloomberg's Odd Lots, hosts Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway delve into the significant impact of the Trump administration's cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The discussion is enriched by insights from Carol Laban, a Professor of Molecular Biosciences at Northwestern University, who provides an insider's perspective on how these financial adjustments are reshaping the landscape of scientific research in the United States.

The Chaos of NIH Funding Cuts (03:05 - 04:57)

Jill Weisenthal opens the conversation by highlighting the tumultuous first month of the Trump administration, marked by abrupt and substantial budget cuts that have left various scientific programs in limbo. She remarks:

"It's chaotic and there have been a lot of cuts and it doesn't look like scalpel types of cuts. Many things have been shut down or frozen completely in some respect."
[03:05]

Tracey Alloway echoes this sentiment, noting the daily barrage of executive orders and internal conflicts within the administration that contribute to the uncertainty facing the scientific community.

Understanding NIH Grants: Direct vs. Indirect Costs (06:11 - 12:31)

Carol Laban provides a detailed explanation of NIH grant structures, distinguishing between direct and indirect costs. She uses an apt analogy to clarify the concept:

"A lab like mine is analogous to running a small business. So let's say that business is a restaurant. The direct cost of the restaurant would be the food, the cooks, and the servers... the indirect costs include maintenance and replacement of equipment, ordering, bookkeeping, handling hazardous waste, compliance with government regulations."
[11:20]

This breakdown underscores how indirect costs support the essential infrastructure of research laboratories, enabling scientists to focus on their investigations without being bogged down by administrative tasks.

Economic Impact of NIH Funding (07:20 - 08:48)

Highlighting the broader implications, Laban emphasizes the substantial economic activity generated by NIH grants:

"The grant monies that come to the universities, they support directly about 400,000 or more employees across those 50 states. But also they drive more than $93 billion of economic activity each year."
[07:20]

She points out that for every dollar of NIH funding granted, approximately $2.50 is generated in economic activity, illustrating the multiplier effect of research investments on the national economy.

Navigating the NIH Grant Process (18:07 - 21:13)

Laban delves into the complexities of securing NIH funding, detailing the rigorous and time-consuming grant application process. She explains:

"NIH runs three funding cycles a year. Each of them take more than half a year to complete, almost three quarters of a year... grants that should have been reviewed this month, month can't be reviewed. And who knows whether their councils will meet coming in May when they should."
[18:23]

The interruption of grant reviews due to administrative freezes has led to delays in funding approvals, creating an existential crisis for many laboratories dependent on these grants for continuity and employment.

Impact on Scientific Workforce and Future Research (21:13 - 23:55)

The discussion shifts to the human element, with Laban expressing deep concern for the trainees and young scientists:

"The trainees right now, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, are completely scared and demoralized and wondering whether there is a future for them in science."
[22:55]

She warns that the disruption in funding jeopardizes not only current research projects but also the cultivation of the next generation of scientific leaders, potentially undermining the U.S.'s position in global scientific and technological advancements.

Comparison with China's Research Model (23:55 - 25:38)

Addressing the competitive landscape, Laban contrasts the U.S. research ecosystem with China's burgeoning investments in science and technology:

"China recognizes what these investments do, and they have been upping and upping the kinds of investments that they make in biotechnology and other technology... We are going to lose that leadership."
[24:56]

She underscores the risk that diminished NIH funding poses to America's ability to maintain its edge in innovation and technological leadership.

Evaluating the NIH System and Future Prospects (25:38 - 27:23)

The conversation critiques the current NIH system, acknowledging its strengths while pointing out inherent flaws due to underfunding:

"Less than 10% of those grants are going to be able to be funded. Where is the line that I could draw where I could clearly say that these ones are absolutely should be funded and these ones maybe need more work or more thought? That line is more around the 25 to 30%."
[25:38]

Despite these challenges, Laban defends the NIH’s efforts to support early career investigators through specialized programs and score boosts, aiming to mitigate some of the adverse effects of limited funding.

The Economics of Research Funding and Commercialization (34:59 - 41:38)

Laban elaborates on the intricate balance between public funding and private sector commercialization. She uses the development of Ozempic as a case study:

"You have to have foundational research that was funded by the NIH... Ozempic came from research, very basic research that was done ages ago on a venomous lizard called a gila monster."
[10:46]

However, she raises concerns about the distribution of profits, highlighting inefficiencies where universities receive limited returns despite spearheading groundbreaking research.

Conclusion and Reflections (43:14 - 48:02)

In wrapping up, Weisenthal and Alloway reflect on the critical role of NIH funding in sustaining America's scientific prowess. Weisenthal remarks:

"But I do think to Carol's point that I really liked is that for the last several decades the US has really had the leading edge industry of the world of studying the hard sciences. And those sciences have turned into all these sort of commercialized technological breakthroughs."
[46:11]

Alloway adds a light-hearted note, appreciating the unexpected scientific inspirations, such as Lamprey research, while emphasizing the profound interconnectedness of public funding and commercial success in the scientific domain.

Key Takeaways

1. Significant Cuts and Their Chaos: The Trump administration's sweeping NIH funding cuts have created a chaotic environment, hindering ongoing research and destabilizing the scientific workforce.

2. Economic Ripple Effects: NIH grants not only advance scientific discovery but also drive substantial economic activity and job creation across the United States.

3. Grant Process Disruptions: Administrative freezes are causing delays in grant approvals, threatening the sustainability of research projects and employment within laboratories.

4. Threat to U.S. Scientific Leadership: Reduced funding jeopardizes America's ability to compete globally, particularly against nations like China that are increasing their investments in science and technology.

5. Challenges in NIH Funding System: Underfunding forces a stringent selection process, potentially disadvantaging early-career scientists despite NIH's efforts to support them.

6. Public-Private Partnership Dynamics: While public funding lays the groundwork for innovations like Ozempic, there are inefficiencies in how benefits and profits are distributed between universities and the broader society.

Notable Quotes

• "It's chaotic and there have been a lot of cuts and it doesn't look like scalpel types of cuts."
  — Jill Weisenthal [03:05]

• "For every dollar of NIH grant money that is granted, it generates almost $2.50 worth of economic activity."
  — Carol Laban [07:20]

• "The trainees right now... are completely scared and demoralized and wondering whether there is a future for them in science."
  — Carol Laban [22:55]

• "We are going to lose that leadership."
  — Carol Laban [24:56]

• "Ozempic came from research, very basic research that was done ages ago on a venomous lizard called a gila monster."
  — Carol Laban [10:46]

Final Thoughts

This episode of Odd Lots sheds light on the profound implications of governmental budgetary decisions on scientific research and economic vitality. Through expert analysis and real-world examples, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the delicate interplay between public funding, scientific innovation, and global competitiveness.

Stay Connected

For more insightful discussions on finance, markets, and economics, subscribe to Odd Lots on your favorite podcast platform or visit Bloomberg Odd Lots.