A few weeks ago, I joined other leaders from academic medical centers and research institutions in Washington, D.C., to talk with policymakers about the urgent need for continued federal investments in health care and biomedical research. Despite mo re than 30 years in the field, I came away with a deeper understanding of the increasing threat to the work so many of us do quietly every day in hospitals, clinics, labs and research facilities across the country.

This work — caring for the sickest patients with the most difficult conditions, conducting lifesaving research in the search for cures, and educating the next generation of physicians and scientists — is at the heart of what academic medical centers do. Yet it’s easy to miss how tightly these missions are connected and how dependent they are on robust, sustained federal funding. Patients will suffer if America slashes support for medical research — and there is no private-sector solution waiting in the wings if that happens.

The stakes could not be higher. The recently passed budget plan would drastically reduce health care funding for the poor and elderly and slash the National Institutes of Health budget by $18 billion — an unprecedented rollback that would devastate the system responsible for nearly all our modern medical advances and treatments. These cuts, proposed without congressional hearings or public input, would mark the first time the federal government has reduced funding for medical research in more than a generation.

This is not just about propping up a few elite institutions. Over 2,500 universities, hospitals and research institutions across the country in small and large communities depend on NIH support to fuel research and innovation. Academic medical centers sit at the center of this ecosystem. We play a unique role: providing advanced care to patients who often have nowhere else to turn, training future physicians and scientists, and conducting the foundational research that drives tomorrow’s medical breakthroughs. NIH support is what makes this three-part mission possible.

Bipartisan federal support for medical research has made a remarkable, positive impact on patients’ lives in recent decades. Just one example: In 1975, the average five-year survival for cancer of all types was just 50%. Today, it’s over 70% and still rising. That gain would have been impossible without a federal commitment to constant improvement through medical research.

Academic medical centers don’t profit from research; we invest in it. NIH funding accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget yet generates $2.56 for every dollar invested in biomedical research. Academic medical centers typically contribute about 50 cents for every dollar of externally sponsored support. While much of this work occurs behind the scenes, its impact is tangible: new drugs, diagnostic tools, and treatment strategies that improve our health and well-being and reduce suffering. The promise of personalized medicine, such as cancer therapies tailored to an individual’s unique genetic makeup, is becoming a reality because of these investments. Diseases are being identified earlier and, in some cases, prevented altogether. In these ways, NIH funding continues to pay dividends for the health of all Americans, now and for generations to come.

The economic stakes of NIH cuts are equally significant. According to the Science & Community Impacts Mapping Project, reduced research activity could cost the U.S. an estimated $16 billion in economic output and eliminate 68,000 jobs nationwide. In Illinois over time, we could lose $608 million and 2,600 jobs annually.

Some might argue that private industry can fill the gap if public funding dries up. That is simply not the case. NIH-funded studies tackle some of the biggest health challenges, through high-risk, long-horizon research that can take years or decades to yield results. That kind of work doesn’t fit a commercial business model, which demands short-term returns for shareholders. Instead, discoveries made through NIH grants create a fertile garden that private companies depend upon to develop new therapies and technologies. Undercutting this system threatens the entire pipeline of innovation.

It’s easy to argue that federal spending cuts are needed to control the deficit, but this overlooks the long-term costs. “There is no investment that pays greater dividends to American families than our investment in this research, which can lead to lifesaving and life-enhancing discoveries,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, recently stated.

Our lifesaving work is not partisan. It is a moral obligation to reduce suffering and improve human health. It is also a matter of national leadership. If the U.S. retreats from biomedical research, countries such as China are ready to step in. America did not become a global scientific leader by accident. We got here by investing in people, research and bold ideas. That leadership is now in jeopardy.

We need Congress to fund the NIH at a minimum of $51.3 billion, as recommended by the bipartisan Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research. Cutting medical research endangers our health, our economy and our future.

Researchers are not asking for glory. They are asking for the tools to keep doing their work — for patients they may never meet and discoveries they may not live to see. We must continue the support that has made America the engine of medical progress for the last half-century.

____

Dr. Mark Anderson is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Chicago.

___

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.