the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine

Summary: Senate Appropriations Hearing on Biomedical Research (Link)

This analysis was prepared by Venable, LLP on behalf of AACOM.

April 30, 2025

WITNESSES

Sudip Parikh, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer and Executive Publisher, Science American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (Testimony)
Hermann Haller, M.D., President, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory (Testimony)
Cartier Esham, Ph.D., Executive Director, Alliance for a Stronger Food and Drug Administration (Testimony)
Barry Paul Sleckman, M.D., Ph.D., Director, University of Alabama at Birmingham O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center (Testimony)
Emily Stenson, Mom and Patient Advocate (Testimony)

OPENING STATEMENTS:

Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) first described the position of the U.S. as a world leader in global biomedical research. Chair Collins specifically praised the generations of scientists, the labs, the grant system, the top-ranking research universities, and various federal agencies for this accomplishment. For Collins, stability is the key asset of the American formula as it allows scientist to focus on their work and know they, and their research, will be supported. Collins then explained that today, China has caught up to the U.S. in terms of biomedical research and discoveries and actions from the Trump Administration, such as cutting research funding, firing essential researchers, and policy uncertainties, threaten to undermine America’s scientific leadership. One policy Collins criticized was the 15 percent indirect cost cap on NIH grants and later other agencies (she called this cap arbitrary and harmful). Collins also criticized the sudden cancellation of grants and mass layoffs. Furthermore, Collins explained that if clinical trials are halted and research is stopped, treatments for illnesses such as cancer and diabetes, will remain undiscovered.
Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) opened by expressing her alarm towards President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE’s actions including the indiscriminate cuts to research and staff. This includes over $1 billion in research cuts on topics like HIV, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and more. Murray further criticized President Trump for making cuts that, in her opinion, do not cut waste or improve efficiency.
Sudip Parikh used his opening testimony to speak on three main challenges facing the research community. The first is the possibility of impoundment or rescission of FY 2025 funds. Funds that have been obligated are not happening at the rate they should be due to “the near paralysis in the structures built to review and process those proposals.” This could lead to impoundment by default. The second is the possibility of “catastrophic” cuts in 2026. If the leaked documents placing NIH budget cuts between 20 and 40 percent, then, according to Parikh, the U.S. will have officially lost its global leadership position to China. The third challenge is the massive cuts to scientific agencies which will see critical researchers removed from their positions. Parikh also emphasized that fixing the consequences of these actions is not something that can be done overnight. It will take decades.
Hermann Haller spoke about his experience as a foreign scientist who was attracted to the U.S. for the possibilities they offered for researchers and the groundbreaking research environment and facilities the U.S. has become famous for. Haller then called for support for high-risk high reward research, sustained funding, investment in research capacity, workforce training, and a renewed focus on preventing and treating chronic disease.
Cartier Esham first noted the importance of the FDA and some of the responsibilities of the FDA. Esham then cited some facts demonstrating U.S. dominance in the global pharmaceutical space and how a well-funded and efficient FDA plays a large role in this. American companies, particularly smaller ones, rely on the FDA to help advance their innovations.
Barry Paul Sleckman praised NIH and NCI for breakthroughs in lifesaving treatments. Sleckman explained that for generations, the U.S. has prioritized biomedical research, trained the next generation of scientists, and accelerated the pace of disease-curing discoveries. Sleckman then passionately explained that the great accomplishments from NIH and NCI are because of federal government support.
Emily Stenson described her family’s experience with federal research funding and the impact it has had on her daughter’s life as she experienced a cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment and participation in a clinical trial.

QUESTION AND ANSWER

Chair Collins first asked Parikh what some of the contributions to biomedical research and innovation were that had been derived from NSF (National Science Foundation). Parikh explained that NSF is one of the only government programs that’s focused entirely on basic research. As for examples, Parikh noted that CRISPR came from basic research done by the NSF. Collins then asked Haller how the proposed 15 percent cap on indirect costs would affect the MDI Laboratory (Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory). Haller explained that labs without tuition or large endowments, rely heavily on government funding and without those funds, they would not be able to complete their work.
Vice Chair Murray asked Stenson what would happen if half of the cancer clinical trials were cut at Seattle Children’s, and how would that affect families in the cancer ward. Stenson responded that it would be devastating as clinical trials are often many families only option. Murray then asked Parikh if, at the slowed rate at grant issuing they’re currently at, will NIH be able to spend the $47 billion that were signed and passed by Present Trump and Congress. Parikh responded that it could go out if NIH makes it a priority and increases the rate. Murray then asked Sleckman how important a patient’s sex is in the diagnosis and the treatment of cancer and is now the time to cut breast cancer research. Sleckman first responded that long term (multiple decade) studies are important and biological sex is extremely important when studying cancer.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) first asked Parikh if he knew anyone who was against biomedical research. Parikh responded no. Kennedy then asked Parikh for clarification on if, when NIH assigns too much money for overhead, then that money comes out of basic research funding. Parikh lightly pushed back on this and explained that money for both goes to research. Kennedy then asked Parikh why the NIH can’t live with 15 percent overhead and then questioned why NIH cannot do 15 percent while other organizations that provide grants limit their overhead to less (12 or 10 percent for a few large organizations). Parikh responded that it is an apples to oranges comparison since other organization define “overhead” differently. Kennedy then expressed his disbelief that 15 percent would be too low and criticized NIH for not having audits over all grants and allowing abuses in funding by grantees.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) first asked Sleckman to discuss how the 15 percent cap will affect the University of Alabama. Sleckman again reiterated that indirect costs go to critical needs for research. On the difference between indirect and direct costs, Parikh explained that many costs that the government considers indirect costs are classified as direct costs by the company.
Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) asked Sleckman to discuss some of the current projects happening at UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham). Sleckman responded that he is excited by everything happening at UAB. Britt then asked why there has been an increase in cancer overall, as well as rising rates in youth. Britt responded that the number one factor in why cancer rates are increasing, is due to Americans surviving longer and getting to ages where they are more likely to develop cancer. Britt then asked why federal funding is so important in the cancer research field, even more so than other diseases. Sleckman explained that this is due to cancer being less of a priority for industry and having less focused private funding because of this.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) first asked Parikh and Sleckman what the long-term effects from these cuts will be on the next generation of scientists and America’s research institutions and biomedical innovation. Parikh answered that he has heard from many young scientists, including American citizens, that they are looking at taking their expertise abroad. Sleckman agreed and explained that many universities and medical schools have elected to cut their graduate classes which means less scientists entering the work force within the decade, and his (Sleckman’s) own peers are also looking at going abroad to work. Baldwin then asked Stenson what delays in prominent cancer treatments would mean for families like hers. Stenson responded that the delays mean they would have no other options to help their kids.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) asked Sleckman how cancer research funding cuts could hurt universities like those in Mississippi that are trying to become NCI designated cancer centers. Sleckman responded that it will likely take longer for universities to get those designations and the number of universities receiving those designations will likely lessen. Sen. Hyde-Smith then discussed large scale research studies taking place in Mississippi and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program. On IDeA, Heller noted that the IDeA programs greatly changed Maine in increased the amount of research they can do.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) expressed how proud he is of NIH and called out the Trump Administration for their direct attacks on American medical research. Van Hollen then asked Stenson what progress in medical research and access to clinical trials has meant to her and other families. Stenson explained that access to clinical trials are crucial for families like hers, so much so, that many families move state lines. Van Hollen then asked Sleckman to speak broadly to the dangers that we will all face if these cuts continue and young scientists continue to be pushed away. Sleckman explained that scientists are usually motivated by passion, but they have limits, and it is crucial certain things remain in place to allow for practitioners to continue doing their work.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) used his time to speak to the importance of and praise medical research and the hope that can be gained from medical research. Moran explained that it’s not only important to protect patients, but also make sure young students who want to become top researchers get the opportunity to do that.
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-DE) expressed his frustration with the Trump Administration and the recent actions taken by DOGE towards medical research, research funding, and health institutions. He described the cuts currently happening as a full-scale abandonment. Coons later asked Esham how the cuts to FDA will impact the agency’s ability to characterize and bring new treatments to those living with ALS. Esham responded that her group did send a letter expressing their concerns over further cuts, but she was relieved to hear that the commissioner does not plan to reorganize the agency and is looking at bringing back certain staff and functions in order to ensure that the agency can run effectively.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) began her questions by first noting that hope is being lost as patients see the cuts to research and as young researchers see their opportunities being shuttered. Murkowski then asked what more can and should the government be doing to increase and improve cross agency collaboration when addressing diseases such as ALS. Parikh first responded that there is paralysis gripping the scientific community and that something needs to be done now. Haller responded that researchers and collaboration requires stability and continuity and that is what is needed now with federal support.
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) questioned why these cuts to cancer research are happening and who it is that supports them. Ossoff emphasized that the hearing has shown that there is bipartisan criticism of the cuts. Ossoff then asked Parikh what the multi-decade impact of this “war on research” could be. Parikh responded that the U.S. is at a crossroads and things could either get better, or the rumored 40 percent cut to NIH could happen and the U.S. would lose its global positioning. Currently English is the language of science – in 20 years this could change.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) first pointed out that yes, Sen. Kennedy was right when he stated that they all agreed biomedical research was important, but she also added that everyone also agrees rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse is important. But efforts to combat abuse are not what is currently taking place with these research funding cuts. Shaheen then pivoted and noted that other agencies such as USAID have also been instrumental in maintaining public health. Shaheen then asked Parikh how cuts to foreign assistance, particularly in the global disease surveillance arena, undermine not just the ability to develop biomedical innovations but also American security. Parikh responded that infectious diseases do not know borders and can travel across the globe in a matter of hours. Parikh continued, explaining that the U.S. must have the ability to understand what is circulating around the world. This requires technology, sociology, and relationship building and maintaining. Shaheen then asked Esham to speak about what stability at the NIH and FDA means in terms of getting private investors to invest locally. Esham agreed that stability is important, and that private companies need to know that the regulatory agency is capable and able to effectively evaluate and provide timely approval and denials.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) explained that he was a part of the effort to increase NIH funding – an effort that has led to a 60 percent increase in funding. This would be completely wiped out by the proposed cuts to the agency. Durbin also noted that between 2010 – 2019, 356 new drugs have been approved, with 354 of those coming from NIH research.
Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) began his time by discussing the infant formula crisis and the fact that the FDA does not have the authority to inspect infant formula until after the product has left the manufacturers control. Peters has introduced legislation to address this issue. On this topic, Peters asked what value FDA scientists bring to ensuring the safety of products including infant formula. Esham responded that they are very important and that her group’s members have voiced concerns about recent cuts and the impacts they may have on the labs abilities to maintain their functions. Esham noted that there are talks of having various staff return to certain labs, but there is still a need for support. Peters then asked about the firing and rehiring of hundreds of scientists and inspectors at FDA medical product laboratories. Peters asked Esham what the impact of these firings and rehirings will have on the health of Americans and American national security. Esham responded that the inspectorion office was already stretched, and this concern has only grown with the layoffs. However, Esham and her group are encouraged by their recent discussion with the FDA commissioner where he stated that he is looking at bringing back some staff that was fired.