Apodaca: Trump administration move could affect research at UC Irvine and elsewhere

Dr. Dan Cooper was a young pediatric resident when he was overcome by a sense of futility as he cared for a 14-year-old boy with cystic fibrosis. There was nothing more that could be done to save the boy from the terrible progressive, genetic disease that affects the lungs, pancreas and other organs. He would die that night.

“We had used every bit of our knowledge to help this kid, and we were going to fail,” he recalled.

Not long after, Cooper did a fellowship at Columbia University that was largely research-based. His career as a physician had taken a turn. Instead of spending most of his time attending patients, as he had long assumed he would do, he would go on to devote the bulk of his long and impressive career to finding ways to treat them.

Today, at 76, Cooper is still going strong at UC Irvine, where he is the associate vice chancellor for clinical and translational science. His is focused on taking scientific discoveries made in a laboratory and using them in the development of clinical interventions and treatments — the invaluable and practical approach of expediting the lab-to-therapy pipeline.

It’s no exaggeration to state that many people are alive or have experienced a significant improvement in the quality of their lives because of scientists like Cooper.

That’s what makes it so frustrating to see scientists — and science itself — under attack.

One of the latest senseless and needlessly damaging assaults is the Trump administration’s move to limit indirect funding for scientific research from the National Institutes of Health to no more than 15% of the value of the grants it awards.

The NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, helping in the development and advancements of treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases and so much more. It is a key reason why the U.S. is a global superpower in the production of cutting-edge biological science.

The indirect funding the NIH provides is frequently misunderstood, but it is essential to carrying out this critical research. Generally speaking, such funding is used to cover basic overhead. This includes the critical components of conducting successful research that are not necessarily focused on the science itself — facilities and administrative expenses such as office space and equipment, back office support, legal and compliance support, research security and biosafety, and utilities.

Opinion

Apodaca: Orange County enlists top talent as it forms a Climate Action Plan

Significant hurdles remain in the way of Orange County following a more environmentally responsible path, but a knowledgeable expert is on the job.

Feb. 12, 2025

Until now, indirect funding has been negotiated with institutions on an individual basis and typically ranges from 25% to 70% of a grant’s value. Without the indirect funds, many scientific research endeavors would come to a screeching halt because they would, quite literally, be unable to keep the lights on.

Consider how it might impact Cooper’s area of research. As a pediatric lung specialist, he and his team are zeroing in on the role of exercise and physical activity on the growth and development of children with lung disease.

“We do know that exercise has a profound impact on disease,” he explained. But what kind of exercise? What amount? How often? His work has led to important discoveries about the precise ways the immune system is affected by exercise, information that is influencing exercise prescriptions for pediatric lung disease patients.

Cooper must periodically reapply for NIH grants to keep this work going. The indirect funding, in part, has helped cover the costs associated with the training of 250 translational scientists since 2010, and for reaching out to high school students to keep the pipeline of fresh blood coming into the field. The funds also help underwrite the costs of clinical trails.

Last summer, his research team’s funding was renewed for about $28 million over seven years. But if the new policy stands, the funding for the indirect costs that would normally go along with that grant would be slashed.

(As of this writing, a court order has stayed the new policy, but the NIH has stopped considering new grant applications, and some universities, uncertain of future funding, are cutting acceptances for biomedical graduates students and postdoctoral scholars.)

To be clear, Cooper doesn’t object to greater scrutiny of indirect costs or of reducing such funding in certain instances. But an across-the-board decrease to 15% would be devastating, he said.

“To arbitrarily say we’re cutting to this amount is going to stop a lot of research.”

It will also discourage recruitment, he fears. “It’s creating this atmosphere, if I’m a young person, why would I go into this field if it’s so at the whim of these budget cuts. It’s hard enough now to bring people into the field.”

For now, he is trying to stay as optimistic as possible. Perhaps a negotiation can lead to less drastic cuts, he said.

“The 15% would destroy research. And I think that’s tragic.”

Tragic indeed, but not only that. In the many years since he helplessly watched a boy die from a horrible disease, Cooper has devoted himself to pioneering science that can be used to prevent such heartbreaking outcomes.

To put that in danger would be a shockingly callous abandonment of our longstanding national quest to be the world leader in scientific advancements, and of our responsibility to further the betterment of humankind. This policy must not stand.