Experts Stunned: U.S. Biomedical Research Gets a Shocking Endorsement from Bill Maher

Bill Maher Calls Donald Trump the ‘Ozempic of the Economy’

As the US biomedical research landscape continues to grapple with unprecedented cuts in funding, a notable figure has stepped forward to highlight the far-reaching consequences of these decisions. In a recent monologue, comedian and television host Bill Maher referred to President Donald Trump as the “Ozempic of the Economy,” a nickname that underscores the devastating impact of these funding cuts on rural cancer patients and the research community.

The Concerns of Scientists and Researchers

• The impact on research that could lead to cures for intellectual disorders and other medical conditions
• The loss of dedicated researchers and scientists who are the backbone of U.S. biomedical research
• The potential for delayed or canceled research projects that could have far-reaching consequences for patients and communities

Scientists and researchers around the country are sounding the alarm about the devastating consequences of these funding cuts. The impact on research that could lead to cures for intellectual disorders and other medical conditions is a pressing concern. Dr. Kimryn Rathmell, former director of the National Cancer Institute, notes that “discoveries are going to be delayed, if they ever happen.”

Furthermore, the loss of dedicated researchers and scientists who are the backbone of U.S. biomedical research is a significant concern. Neuroscientist Richard Huganir of Johns Hopkins University emphasizes that “all the people out there who have, you know, sick parents, sick children, this is going to impact.”

Additionally, the potential for delayed or canceled research projects that could have far-reaching consequences for patients and communities is a significant concern. Georgetown University health policy expert Lawrence Gostin notes that the administration’s unprecedented moves are “upending the research engine that has made the U.S. “the envy of the world in terms of scientific innovation.”

The Real-World Consequences of the NIH’s Cuts

• Massive cuts in funding will result in job losses in research labs and local businesses serving the NIH
• The impact on the local economy will be felt across the country, with significant economic losses predicted
• The consequences of these cuts will be felt by patients, researchers, and the community at large

The real-world consequences of the NIH’s cuts are far-reaching and devastating. Massive cuts in funding will result in job losses in research labs and local businesses serving the NIH. The impact on the local economy will be felt across the country, with significant economic losses predicted. The consequences of these cuts will be felt by patients, researchers, and the community at large.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants divided between researchers in every state in 2023 supported more than 412,000 jobs and $92 billion in new economic activity, according to a yearly report from United for Medical Research. The loss of these jobs and economic activity will have a ripple effect on local communities and small towns that rely heavily on NIH-funded research.

The Impact on Rural Cancer Patients

Rural cancer patients are disproportionately affected by these funding cuts. Patients who live in rural counties are 10% more likely to die of their cancer than those living in metropolitan areas, according to Neli Ulrich of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute.

A third of patients travel more than 150 miles for care at the Salt Lake City cancer center. However, for patients even further away — in Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming — it’s also the regional hub for NIH-funded studies of new treatments. The impact of these funding cuts on these patients will be severe.

The issue: Most of the NIH’s budget — more than $35 billion a year — goes to universities, hospitals and other research groups. The grants are divided into “direct costs” — covering researchers’ salaries and a project’s supplies — and “indirect costs,” to reimburse other expenses supporting the work such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight.

NIH directly negotiates with research groups, a process that grants managers say requires receipts and audits, to set rates for those indirect expenses that can reach 50% or more. However, the Trump administration now plans to cap those rates at 15%. The administration estimates it would save the government $4 billion a year but scientists say it really means they’ll have to stop some lifesaving work.

Using separate cancer center funds to cover those costs would threaten other “activities that are really important to us in serving our communities across the mountain West.” A federal judge has blocked the move for now but until the court fight is done researchers aren’t sure what they can continue to afford.