Senate Hearing Explores Impact of Administration’s Actions on Biomedical Research

By: Allison Hays, Federal Science Partners
Thursday, May 8, 2025
On April 30, the Senate Appropriations Committee held its first full committee hearing of the 119th Congress, “Biomedical Research: Keeping America’s Edge in Innovation.” Witnesses included Sudip Parikh, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Hermann Haller, PhD, president of the Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory; Cartier Esham, PhD, executive director of the Alliance for a Stronger Food and Drug Administration; Barry Paul Sleckman, PhD, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Emily Stenson, a mother of a pediatric cancer survivor and patient advocate. 

Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (Maine) set the tone in her opening statement by stressing the high priority the committee places on biomedical research and highlighting troubling actions from the administration, including the proposal to immediately implement a 15 percent cap on facilities and administrative (F&A costs), the abrupt cancellation of grants, proposals to slash federal funding, and the firing of scientists and other federal experts with little to no justification. She said, “These actions put our leadership in biomedical innovation at real risk and must be reversed.”

Ranking Member Patty Murray (Washington) also commented on the Appropriations Committee’s bipartisan efforts to invest in biomedical research and how the funding has paid off by generating billions in economic activity, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and cures and treatments that were once unthinkable. She used even stronger language describing the new administration’s impact on NIH noting her alarm that “President Trump has taken a wrecking ball to our biomedical research enterprise. He and Elon Musk have been tossing tomorrow's groundbreaking cures into a shredder. From day one, DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] has been cutting critical research without rhyme or reason or any regard for who gets hurt.” 

Several other Republicans spoke to the value of the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

• Alabama Senator Katie Britt said she understood that smart investment is essential and asked Sleckman what work they are doing to make positive changes for the future, and why federal funding is unique in cancer prevention research
• Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde Smith highlighted how the University of Mississippi is trying to get its National Cancer Institute designation and asked how cuts could affect their effort to get this status. She also highlighted the role of NIH’s Institutional Development Award program, citing its profound impact and its role in correcting a historic imbalance in funding, and noted her efforts to reauthorize the program 
• Kansas Senator Jerry Moran spoke about how everyone benefits from NIH research, saying we need to prioritize and eliminate what doesn’t make sense, but those problems shouldn’t be a reason to criticize medical research as a whole. He also said there are "very few things that we do in Congress provide the hope that NIH provides for people across our country. Let's do our jobs, let's make certain that we make the right kind of choices and make decisions that prioritize and eliminate things that need to be eliminated. But don't fall into the trap of saying that what happens at NIH doesn't matter"
• Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski talked about the unprecedented hits to NIH of the last few months, and in response to one of her questions, Parikh highlighted concerns about funding that are imminent, not related to fiscal year 2026
• Louisiana Senator John Kennedy spoke of his love for NIH, likening being against biomedical research to being against children, world peace, and golden retrievers. However, he focused his questions on why research institutions can’t live with a 15 percent F&A rate, cases of abuse of federal funds, and NIH audits being conducted too infrequently

As the hearing closed, Ranking Member Murray expressed hope that officials from the administration would appear at a future hearing to listen to the concerns of the committee. FASEB submitted a statement for the hearing record, commenting on several issues raised during the witness testimony and questions and answers, including the 15 percent cap on F&A costs, sudden termination of grants, and the growing instability across the biomedical funding landscape.