Cuts to the NIH budget would be ‘devastating’

Sanford Burnham’s president says proposal could hamper research

Dr. Ranjan Perera’s research is at a critical juncture.

In his laboratory at the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute in Lake Nona, his research team has been investigating whether certain biomarkers in urine can diagnose prostate cancer more accurately than the current PSA test.

He’s about to publish a paper on his findings. He’s also planning to apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health to conduct more research. And he’s optimistic that one day in the near future, his simple urine test can save men from having to undergo unnecessary prostate biopsies.

But getting there — from the bench at his research lab to the doctors’ offices — is a long, unpredictable and expensive process. And for scientists like Perera who rely on federal funds to advance their research, the future is even more uncertain if President Donald Trump’s proposed budget, which includes an 18.3 percent cut to the NIH, passes.

It’s nearly a $6 billion cut and could lead to a major set back for scientific research in the United States, researchers say.

“I don’t know if there’s any other word to describe it other than it’ll be totally devastating,” said Dr. Kristiina Vuori, president of Sanford Burnham.

The cuts not only could eliminate the progress that’s been made in the past decade, but also discourage graduating college students from pursuing careers in biomedical research.

“I think that’s the scariest part,” said Vuori, who is based in Sanford Burnham’s La Jolla, Calif., headquarters.

On Thursday, she was in Lake Nona to attend the Genomics Medicine Symposium, hosted by the institute for nearly 100 researchers from across Florida, including the University of Miami, the University of Florida, the University of Central Florida and Sanford Burnham.

Presentations at the daylong conference ranged from epigenetics, which is the study of how gene activity is regulated; human microbiome research, which studies the role of the microbes that live inside humans; to projects like Perera’s and technologies that make genomics medicine possible.

“I think we’ve really turned the corner in many areas of research, so that basic science is increasingly yielding tangible patient benefits and it’s very hard to see how those could essentially move to fruition if they get cut,” Vuori said.

NIH spends more than 80 percent of its budget on funding scientific research. But during tight budget years, the agency is less likely to fund risky research projects or projects like Perera’s that are at the cusp of being validated.

Vuori, a cancer scientist, came to the United States from Finland around the time Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon.

“To me this was profoundly impactful. … I thought, ‘Wow, if there’s a country that puts the man on the moon, they have no boundaries on what one can pursue in