The government recently announced an astonishing $4 billion cut to research institutions across the nation that have National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded programs.

Why should this matter to people in Maine when budget cuts are simultaneously occurring across all departments in the federal bureaucracy? It turns out extramural-funded research in Maine is a burgeoning economic enterprise.

NIH funds support biomedical research across Maine at The Jackson Laboratory, Maine Medical Center, MDI Biological Laboratory and the Universities of Maine and New England to the tune of $125 million in fiscal year 2024. In general, every $1 NIH invests results in $2.46 of economic activity.

Moreover, NIH-funded research has led to significant breakthroughs that improve human health in everything from infectious diseases to cancer. In addition, during 2023 alone, NIH funding in the United States supported over 400,000 jobs and generated nearly $93 billion in economic activity. How could this happen overnight and what exactly are these cuts?

Simply put, NIH research grants are awarded with two separate pots of money. The first is called the direct cost. That represents the money required to do the research, get the equipment and drugs for human and/or animal studies and pay investigators. The second pot is the indirect cost. That is what it takes an institution to perform those studies, i.e., support ancillary personnel and students, pay rent on research space, maintain and upgrade overall resources and equipment and safeguard human and animal studies through ongoing oversight and support.

No awarded grant could be done in a vacuum, hence the administrative or indirect costs are essential and generally are calculated to cost between 35-70% of the original grant award, depending on the institution.

The government has declared that indirect costs for all federally funded NIH grants would be 15%, a shocking reduction for every institution across the country, but particularly in Maine. Project 2025 advocated such a cut by citing waste and abuse from indirect costs, although no such documentation has been presented to support that generalization.

Moreover, NIH in a statement declared that medical research in universities such as Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins have huge endowments that can cover all the lost revenue. (For context, Harvard had a $53.2 billion endowment in the 2024 fiscal year.)

Even universities with major endowments will likely face challenges since many endowments are severely restricted in their spending.  However, institutions in Maine are in a far more precarious position. We are a small state with limited state funds and no universities with the kinds of endowments mentioned by the NIH. And there is good reason why we should not leave top-notch research to institutions with giant endowments in a few well-funded states.

Here in Maine, we do first class biomedical research that saves lives and produces new breakthroughs in cancer, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s, to name a few.

I have spent 40 years in clinical practice in Maine as an endocrinologist but also run a basic research laboratory and oversee multiple clinical trials funded by the NIH. I have worked at three of the five institutions in Maine that receive substantial NIH funding as well as serving on several NIH advisory committees.

So I can unequivocally state that loss of indirect revenues through these cuts will have a chilling effect on our Maine research enterprise. Small research institutions will suffer major job layoffs, and may not be able to accept further NIH funding without the means to carry those programs out. The economic fallout from job losses will be felt throughout the state.

Fortunately, all is not lost. We have two great senators from Maine, and both understand the nuances that come with large biomedical research grants.

Sen. Collins probably knows more about the NIH and its importance in finding breakthroughs for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and diabetes from her 30y years of advocacy than any senator or representative in Congress. And she now chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee where NIH funding is determined. I call on her and all our representatives to reverse this poorly thought out decision and move forward so we can do the kind of work that all of us want to see happen to make our communities the healthiest they can be.