In the early 1990s, physician-scientist John Eng began investigating how the Gila monster, a slow-moving desert lizard, maintains stable blood sugar levels during months-long fasting periods. Working with limited resources at a Veterans Affairs hospital, Eng and a colleague isolated a molecule within the lizard’s venom that mimicked a human gut hormone but remained active for hours rather than minutes. This discovery ultimately led to the development of synthetic GLP-1 drugs, such as Ozempic and Wegovy, which have transformed treatments for diabetes and obesity and hold promise for cardiovascular conditions. These medications are projected to save tens of thousands of lives annually.
Despite such breakthroughs, the U.S. biomedical research funding landscape is facing significant challenges. Since 2025, billions of dollars in research grants have been frozen or canceled under the Trump administration, although courts have mandated some funds to be released and Congress has rejected proposed agency budget cuts. Nevertheless, federal agencies have consistently reduced the number of grants awarded monthly compared with prior years. The administration has also proposed a new rule requiring federal research grants to be approved by political appointees and to clearly align with presidential policy priorities, a move that could further slow grant disbursements.
Graduate programs nationwide have cut admissions, limiting the entry of new scientists into the research pipeline. Cancer researcher Rachael Sirianni recently highlighted the bleak funding outlook for promising treatments, noting that obtaining grants for her work on pediatric brain tumors is nearly impossible. Reduced financial support for scientific inquiry threatens to stall exploration of novel and unconventional research questions—the very investigations that often fuel major medical advances.
Historically, fundamental discoveries have emerged from unexpected places. For instance, rapamycin, an immunosuppressant used in organ transplantation, was discovered in soil samples from Easter Island, while CRISPR gene-editing technology originated from studying bacteria in yogurt. Such tools have revolutionized medicine, enabling treatments that correct genetic disorders like sickle cell disease.
Long-term, sustained investment has also produced monumental results against diseases that once had grim prognoses. The fight against childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, initiated in the 1940s, evolved over decades through federal funding into treatments offering approximately 90% survival rates. Each scientific advance built incrementally, underscoring the necessity of consistent support for vast, multi-year research efforts.
U.S. spending on biomedical research is modest relative to federal expenditures and international peers. The National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest public biomedical research funder, accounts for less than 1% of all U.S. federal spending. The United States ranks 13th in research investment relative to its overall economy among OECD countries. Meanwhile, other nations, notably China, have prioritized biotechnology for two decades, raising concerns about America’s global competitiveness and future medical independence.
Experts warn that biological innovation will be as critical to national security as military strength. Cutting basic scientific research amid rising global biotechnological competition may undermine efforts to lead in medicine and safeguard public health.
The unpredictability of scientific progress demands ongoing funding for both high-risk and long-term projects. For example, research into how cells degrade messenger RNA—initially considered an obscure topic—became central to the development of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. This illustrates that today’s curiosity-driven inquiries can become tomorrow’s lifesaving treatments. Without continuous investment in scientific exploration, the nation risks losing breakthroughs yet to be imagined.