It’s time to check in on what’s been happening with science funding over the past month. 

Is the pendulum is starting to slowly swing back?

https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-will-reinstate-900-grants-response-court-order

• Judges across the country order NIH to stop terminating politically sensitive grants. And in some cases to reinstate grants that were revoked.

Last few days

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02221-6

• NIH dismisses advisory council members that do not line up with the current administration. Advisory council members are the people that make final decisions on NIH grant funding. The journal Nature reports that replacement candidate’s social media presences are being screened for negative views on the administration.

https://www.science.org/content/article/congressional-spending-panels-continue-push-back-against-proposed-trump-research-cuts

• Update on the congressional budget cuts proposed for the 2026 FY starting in October. It went through the Senate with some promising modifications, now it’s on to House. Some changes in numbers:
  • NASA 18% cut instead of 50% 
  • 25% proposed cut to NSF instead of 50% despite senate recommendation to maintain for both.
  • DOE cut rejected (2% increase, actually instead of 14% cut)
  • USFWS 6% cut instead of 32%
  • EPA 23% cut instead of 54% proposed

We await the house’s vote to see how this develops

7/16/25

NIH wants to fade out animal models

NIH proposal sows concerns over future of animal research, unnecessary costs

Animal models are definitely tech.

Last week, the NIH announced that future funding opportunities would no longer include research that exclusively uses animal models.

https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2025/07/nih-funding-announcements-to-align-with-nih-initiative-to-prioritize-human-based-research

They instead want to encourage “new approach methodologies” (NAMs) like organoids, organs-on-a-chip, computer modeling, and “AI”. What they mean precisely by “AI” is not defined.

Not much detail on timeline and limitations were provided but this raised concern amongst researchers. Here are a few points that have been raised:

Animal models are incredibly important for human health. Testing in animals prevents repercussions in humans later on. Some things that researchers study in animal models, like behavior, are not replicable in any other format. How do you measure behavior in an organoid?

Computer modeling or AI does not have the capacity to discover new things. It can only analyze data that it has been provided, and potentially identify what information is lacking. Thus, it is an inadequate replacement for animal models in which we do not know the outcome of the research question.

While NAMs may eventually replace animal models, the technology to achieve this is not quite there yet. Researchers are already encouraged using animal models as little as possible because reducing animal models is better ethically, cheaper, and receives more recognition from funding agencies. However, there are many cases in which it is not yet possible to stop using animal models entirely. And even cases in which doing so could put human lives at risk.

A transition towards zero animal model research is possible, but it will require substantial funding support over a long period of time. A sudden halt would do more harm than good at present.

As covered on the Daily Tech News Show on July 17th 2025. For a more detailed discussion of the topic, listen here:

Beeper’s Back Baby! – DTNSB 5062