NIH cuts won’t solve an antisemitism problem
“My students grants on Alzheimer’s Disease were cancelled.” “I can only keep my lab open for a month or two without these funds.” These are the messages that I’ve been receiving from friends in New York and other US research locations. Recently the United States federal government cancelled $400 million dollars in grants to Columbia University, with $250 million coming from NIH funds to the biomedical sciences. There are now over a dozen other universities on a list of those to be targeted for these drastic cuts next, which are said to be in response to failures to address antisemitism across US college campuses. Accordingly, Columbia University received a list of items to address in order to “open a conversation” about “next steps,” and although there has been some back and forth between the university and the administration, those funds are currently still frozen. This letter was sent only after the grants were terminated, with no option to address concerns beforehand.
This is a deeply personal issue for me. I am an observant Jew and have close family living in Israel. Like most American Jews, October 7th was a horrific day that I will never shake from my memory. I strongly believe in Israel’s need to defend itself again Hamas and other terrorist groups, and polls suggest that the majority of Americans feels the same way. As Jews, we know that antisemitism is the oldest and most pervasive type of hatred in the world. We know that although Jews account for only 2% of the US population, antisemitic incidents accounted for 63% of religious-based hate crimes last year and 15% overall, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have no doubt that there were protesters on US campuses with antisemitic motives, and that many of the chants at these protests are designed to make Jews feel deeply uncomfortable and fearful on campus. Having once been an undergraduate student at an elite US university, I am extremely sympathetic to Jewish students who have had their classes interrupted and their entrance blocked to campus buildings.
But I am also a scientist. I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during my PhD studies in Neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. I was funded by two NIH awards during my postdoctoral fellowship at the Rockefeller University. Over 1 million NIH dollars currently funds my research on eating disorders and other related mental illnesses in my current research laboratory at the Max Planck Florida a Institute for Neuroscience. Those of us who have chosen a career in the academic biomedical research field in lieu of more lucrative careers have done so for one primary reason: We believe that scientific research leads to cures and preventative measures for the diseases that ail our societies. As a scientist, I am forever grateful that taxpayers have consistently seen the value of investing in scientific research, both in terms of the economic growth, as well as the treatments that result.
However, these treatments have not and cannot come from the private sector alone. Before a clinical trial can begin, the majority of the basic research that leads to that trial comes from NIH funded basic research in laboratories across America. As an example, the Glp1 receptor agonists that are currently so popular, like Ozempic, derived the initial evidence from basic laboratory research studying the impact of Glp1 and its receptor on blood sugar and food intake in rodents. The first drug to be released in this category, exenatide, was derived by a scientist studying the venom of a particular lizard. In fact, one study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science has shown that NIH funded research contributed to every single drug approved by the FDA from 2010-2016.
The current US federal administration has set a goal to cure chronic illnesses. To do that, more research is needed, not less. The NIH currently accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget. But to advance understanding and cures for chronic illnesses, we will need to invest in studies to understand the underlying causes and identify potential environmental links. That is why the recent decisions to cut NIH funding to universities over concerns of antisemitism are illogical and are detrimental to Jewish and non-Jewish people alike. At Columbia University, much of the scientific research happens on the medical campus, which is 30 blocks north of where the encampments and protests that took place on the undergraduate campus. The scientists at Columbia have little to do with these protests and no power over the administration to alter their responses.
Punishing these scientists for the actions or inactions of the University administration will not advance the fight against antisemitism. If anything, it only serves to act as another divide, another way to drive a wedge between people rather than finding ways for constructive dialogue and change. Cutting NIH funding to these universities will not materially impact the students that participated in these protests or the administrators on the undergraduate campuses, but instead targets the people who have committed their lives to finding life-saving cures for intractable diseases. These scientists go to work each day solely focused on that mission. These government cuts to NIH funding put that mission at risk. They put your health at risk.
