{"id":52169,"date":"2025-12-02T07:42:23","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T11:42:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/?p=52169"},"modified":"2025-12-02T07:42:23","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T11:42:23","slug":"estados-unidos-esta-financiando-menos-subvenciones-en-todas-las-areas-de-la-ciencia-y-la-medicina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/noticiasveraces.com\/?p=52169","title":{"rendered":"Estados Unidos est\u00e1 financiando menos subvenciones en todas las \u00e1reas de la ciencia y la medicina"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\t[–>[–><\/p>\n
[!–> <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
National Institutes of Health competitive grant funding<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
In the past decade, the National Institutes of Health awarded top scientists $9 billion in competitive grants<\/strong> each year, to find cures for diseases and improve public health<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n
This year, something unusual happened\u2026<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the past decade, the National Institutes of Health awarded top scientists $9 billion in competitive grants<\/strong> each year, to find cures for diseases and improve public health<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n
This year, something unusual happened\u2026<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[!–>[–><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Starting in January, the Trump administration stalled that funding. By summer, funding lagged by over $2 billion, or 41 percent below average<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Starting in January, the Trump administration stalled that funding. By summer, funding lagged by over $2 billion, or 41 percent below average<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[!–>[–><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
But in a surprising turn, the N.I.H. began to spend at a breakneck pace and narrow this gap.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But in a surprising turn, the N.I.H. began to spend at a breakneck pace and narrow this gap.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[!–>[–><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
There was a catch, however: That money went to fewer grants.<\/strong><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n
Which means less research was funded<\/strong> in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There was a catch, however: That money went to fewer grants.<\/strong><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n
Which means less research was funded<\/strong> in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.<\/p>\n
Includes new grants and competitive grant renewals. In 2025 dollars.<\/p>\n
[!–><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/p>\n
To spend its budget, the N.I.H. made an unusual number of large lump-sum payments for many years of research, instead of its usual policy of paying for research one year at a time.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While this might sound like a boon for researchers, it\u2019s actually a fundamental shift in how grants are funded \u2014 one that means more competition for funding, and less money and less time to do the research.<\/p>\n
And because these fully funded grants commit all of their money up front, it means that the agency\u2019s annual budget is divided into fewer projects, instead of being spread among a larger number of scientific bets.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The new policy directive came from the White House\u2019s Office of Management and Budget, which in the summer instructed the N.I.H. to spend half of its remaining funds to fully fund research grants. In the past, the agency would do so only in special circumstances.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The White House has said this would \u201cincrease N.I.H. budget flexibility\u201d by not encumbering its annual budget with payments to previously approved projects. It has said it plans to continue this policy in 2026, while proposing to shrink the agency\u2019s budget by $18 billion, or nearly 40 percent. (The Senate and House rejected the White House\u2019s proposed budget cuts, but have not yet agreed on the agency\u2019s budget.)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cMy sense of it was that the administration wanted to clear the decks,\u201d said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the N.I.H.\u2019s National Cancer Institute, who said she was sharing her views, not those of the institute.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The new policy is being instituted as the Trump administration has tightened its hold over federal science funding. Earlier this year, it delayed reviewing grants in order to vet research by political appointees, culled projects that mentioned D.E.I. and fired thousands of employees or pressured them to retire early. (The N.I.H. lost nearly 3,000 employees this year, or about 14 percent of its work force, based on a New York Times review of the agency\u2019s shutdown contingency plans.)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cThey brought everything to a stop,\u201d Dr. Kobrin said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the N.I.H. managed to spend most of its budget by the end of the fiscal year. \u201cMy colleagues did an outstanding job to work their butts off to approve things,\u201d said Theresa Kim, a program officer at N.I.H.\u2019s National Institute on Aging.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Something similar happened at the National Science Foundation, which is the second-largest federal funder of research at U.S. universities, after the N.I.H.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The N.S.F. started the year with funding delays caused by the Trump administration, and it lost about a third of its employees in layoffs or forced retirements. The agency ended the year awarding 25 percent fewer new grants.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation, 2015\u201325<\/h3>\n
[!–><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/p>\n
Facing a proposed $5 billion cut to its $9 billion budget, the N.S.F. fully paid off many of the grants that were on its books, a strategy that employees dubbed \u201cpaying down the mortgage.\u201d It also paid for nearly all new awards upfront (though, unlike at the N.I.H., not necessarily for less time and money).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To draw these conclusions, The Times used public data to analyze nearly every competitive grant \u2014 over 300,000 in all \u2014 that the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. awarded since 2015, and interviewed many employees at these agencies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what we found:<\/p>\n
[–><\/p>\n
1. Fewer grants in every area of science and medicine<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
[–><\/p>\n
Together, the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. had a nearly $60 billion annual budget for funding future breakthroughs in science and medicine, about a quarter of which is typically spent on new grants or competitive renewals.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This year, both agencies made far fewer competitive awards:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Competitive grants at the \u2026<\/h3>\n
[!–><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
National Institutes of Health<\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
National Science Foundation<\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/p>\n
The White House has said it is streamlining scientific funding by eliminating wasteful spending and cutting \u201cwoke programs\u201d that \u201cpoison the minds of Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But the more than 3,500 fewer competitive grants from the N.I.H. this year touched every area of biology and medicine:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Competitive grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health<\/h3>\n
[!–><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
[!–>[–><\/p>\n
Figures are rounded. In 2025 dollars.<\/p>\n
[!–><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/p>\n
In practice, this means thousands of very competitive projects in areas like cancer, diabetes, aging, neurological disorders and public health improvements most like went unfunded in 2025.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Similarly, at the National Science Foundation, the roughly 3,000 fewer new grants encompassed reductions to every area of science (and the social sciences):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation<\/h3>\n