Over 74,000 research participants have been affected by the recent wave of National Institutes of Health funding cuts, according to a new study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine. Between late February and mid-August, funding was terminated for 383 clinical trials investigating treatments for conditions including cancer, heart disease, and brain disorders.

The research revealed that infectious disease studies were disproportionately impacted, with trials focused on flu, pneumonia, and COVID-19 facing significant funding reductions. This disruption has created a cascade of consequences for both patients and the broader medical research community.

“The disruption to the research enterprise was profound and substantial,” said Heather Pierce, who has been monitoring NIH grant cuts for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

For many participants, the funding cuts resulted in immediate practical problems. Some enrolled in trials that were subsequently delayed or never initiated as research institutions scrambled to find alternative funding sources. Others lost access to experimental medications they had been receiving or were left with implanted medical devices that would no longer be properly monitored. In some cases, participants contributed data to studies that may never publish results.

The study found that approximately 1 in 30 NIH-funded clinical trials lost funding during the study period. Out of 11,008 NIH-funded studies examined, 383 experienced funding termination.

Dr. Anupam B. Jena of Harvard Medical School, a co-author of the study, emphasized the broader implications: “The whole purpose of these clinical trials is to generate evidence on what works and doesn’t work in medicine.” The loss of this research inhibits medical progress and denies potential treatments to patients who might have benefited from them.

Beyond the immediate research impacts, experts warn about the potential erosion of public trust in medical research. Jeremy Berg, a former NIH institute director, expressed concern that these cuts could make potential participants hesitant to join future clinical trials.

“Anybody else who’s ever approached about a clinical trial could easily feel, ‘Why should I be involved in this?'” Berg noted, highlighting how unexpected funding terminations might damage the relationship between research institutions and the communities they serve.

The funding reductions have occurred amid broader budget cuts at NIH under the Trump administration, which has slashed billions from research projects. A Supreme Court decision in August further enabled NIH to eliminate hundreds of millions in funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Additionally, legal challenges are ongoing regarding NIH’s attempted cuts to indirect research costs, which cover essential infrastructure and administrative expenses at research institutions.

The scientific community has responded with significant concern. In June, hundreds of NIH scientists signed a letter protesting the new policies and grant terminations, stating that they “undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”

The funding instability comes at a particularly challenging time for medical research, as institutions are still recovering from pandemic-related disruptions while facing increasing costs and competition for limited resources. Many research centers have been forced to lay off staff, scale back projects, or abandon promising lines of investigation entirely.

Emily G. Hilliard, press secretary with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, declined to comment on the findings.

The long-term consequences of these funding disruptions may not be fully understood for years, but experts warn that today’s cuts could delay medical breakthroughs that might have improved or saved lives in the future.