NIH Funding Cuts: Major Changes to U.S. Research Grants Explained!

The NIH has announced drastic funding cuts, capping indirect research costs at 15%. While this move could save $4 billion, scientists warn it may cripple essential medical research. Indirect costs support lab space, equipment, and personnel—without them, universities may struggle to sustain groundbreaking studies. In this video, we break down: ✅ What indirect research costs cover ✅ Why universities and scientists are protesting the cuts ✅ The potential impact on cancer research, drug development, and public health ✅ Political reactions and the future of NIH funding The debate over scientific funding is heating up. Will this policy streamline research spending, or will it hinder life-saving innovations? Join the discussion in the comments below! 📌 Stay informed! Subscribe for more updates on science, tech policy, and research funding. #NIH #ResearchFunding #MedicalResearch #ScienceNews #Trump #ScientificInnovation #UniversityFunding #PublicHealth #BiomedicalResearch #HealthcarePolicy #SciencePolicy #EducationFunding #CancerResearch #PharmaceuticalIndustry #TechNews Tags: NIH funding cuts, National Institutes of Health, Research funding reduction, Indirect research costs, Biomedical research funding, Medical research impact, University research budget, Science policy changes, Healthcare research funding, Federal research grants, Scientific innovation crisis, Lab funding cuts, Cancer research funding, Pharmaceutical research grants, Education and research policy, Trump administration science policy, Academic research support, U.S. science funding crisis, Research universities budget cuts, Future of medical breakthroughs