Five years ago, the Covid-19 pandemic swept through the world, resulting in massive disruptions, including to biomedical researchers. As National Institutes of Health-funded physician-scientists, we collectively experienced the pitfalls of lab closures, pauses in clinical trial recruitment due to staffing issues and social distancing policies affecting in-person accrual, and redeployment away from research work to the frontlines to support clinical care.
While all scientists faced these barriers, one group was at particular risk.
Early career researchers depend on initial institutional investment and stability to support them, both financially and through mentorship on their path toward becoming senior scientists and leaders. They are also often supported by NIH-funded Career Development Awards (“K awards”) to provide experience and training to become independent scientists. These supports are critical to the future of science as early career researchers are the pipeline to ensure generations of scientists will conduct research that leads to lifesaving discoveries for our country.
Our recent paper in Academic Medicine describes the plight of early career researchers during the Covid-19 pandemic. The overwhelming majority of the more than 1,500 early career researchers we surveyed were negatively impacted by detrimental consequences to their research careers related to the cancellation of in-person conferences that prevented sharing of results and institutional recognition that is often required for promotion. Many also reported depressed research productivity, overall career trajectory, and worse mental health. In addition, early career researchers who were from underrepresented groups were more likely to experience more negative outcomes related to research productivity and mental health.
While the Covid-19 public health emergency has ended, we are now facing a new crisis for researchers, particularly those just starting out. This is because biomedical research is threatened again by a slew of recent federal actions, such as the freeze in study section meetings, the proposed cut to indirect costs, or the termination of grants with “prohibited terms,” including those focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion. While senior investigators also face uncertainty, as a group they are more likely to have leadership roles, bigger recruitment or retention packages, or access to institutional or philanthropic support in the form of centers or endowed chairs.
It is early career researchers who will depend solely on support to survive this period. Those who are from groups that are often underrepresented in science are at greater risk of their own grants being terminated due to studying ideas that relate to their lived experience or simply because they were funded by training grants to expand the diversity of the scientific workforce. Even if one does not explicitly study a topic related to these areas, many early career researchers were in training when federal agencies specifically asked or encouraged researchers to address disparities and vulnerable populations in any grant application.
To make matters worse, the early career researchers who completed training or received a K award during the pandemic are now applying for their first R01 without knowing if their NIH study section is meeting. This transition to independence, from a mentored K award to an independent R grant, is a key milestone in the career path of biomedical researchers. Without action, early career researchers and trainees will not see or have a path forward and will leave the biomedical workforce by choice or necessity.
Apart from junior faculty, the situation is also dire for Ph.D. students and postdoctoral scholars, many of whom are directly funded through NIH training grants (awarded to them as individuals or to their institutions) that are vital to their future. Graduate students are entirely dependent on stable labs and healthy core resources like animal facilities, laboratory equipment, and/or biostatistical support. Given the uncertain fiscal climate, universities are responding by cutting Ph.D. programs or pausing admissions. Interestingly, one of the strongest predictors of entry into a biomedical research career is a research experience as an undergraduate. Unfortunately, many of these student internships are also being cut, including prestigious opportunities at NIH and the National Science Foundation. These cuts don’t just prevent a training opportunity but also undermine the career aspirations and preparation of some of the most talented students to enter the biomedical research workforce. It takes a decade or more of post-secondary education to create a biomedical scientist — and replenishing the pipeline will take even longer.
It requires generations of researchers to make new discoveries that will benefit patients. For example, the journey to new cancer therapeutics that use personalized genetic information, or “precision medicine,” often begins decades earlier with foundational basic science research catalyzed by NIH funding, followed by NIH-funded trials of the therapy in specific populations to demonstrate safety and efficacy. United for Medical Research, an organization representing research institutions, industry and advocacy organizations recently released a report documenting the dramatic economic benefit of biomedical research: Roughly $37 billion in research grants awarded to American scientists in FY2024 generated nearly $100 billion in economic activity and sustained over 400,000 jobs.
To ensure a generation of scientists and their future work is not lost, we must turn again to the solutions used during the pandemic but also create new ones. Bridge and gap funding are needed to retain early career researchers during a time when federal funding may not be available. In addition to institutional support for bridge funding for affected investigators, foundation, industry, and philanthropic partners should come together to maintain scientific discovery and innovation for early career researchers. During the pandemic, we received an institutional grant from a coalition of foundations led by the Doris Duke Foundation that supported more than 18 early career researchers at our institution and many others nationwide disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Given rigid academic promotion timelines, mechanisms to adjust reappointment and promotion processes should be considered. Someone who is re-submitting an R01 has no guarantee their grant will be reviewed or funded, even if it is reviewed favorably, on the timeline necessary for promotion. The use of such approaches has been described for those whose careers were affected during the pandemic.
While our institution and others have begun to explore new models of supporting biomedical researchers and removing barriers to entry for those on the physician scientist pathway, innovations are urgently needed to support those on the Ph.D. pathway as well. Such innovations to support alternative funding could include academic-industry partnerships or global consortia.
Lastly, given the incredible importance of federal funding to biomedical research training and output, all researchers, including early career researchers, should be trained and encouraged to share their stories to policymakers and the public outlining why their work is vital to improving human health.
Scientific advances that improve the health of Americans take decades. Such breakthroughs rely on the creation of a healthy biomedical workforce that spans generations and make ideas in the lab become cures for patients. The success of this work requires urgent investment and innovation, including on the part of our government, academic institutions, foundations, philanthropy and industry. The health of our nation depends on it.
Anna Volerman is a medicine-pediatrics physician and associate professor at the University of Chicago, where Valerie Press is also a medicine-pediatrics physician and professor. The views expressed here reflect their views as individuals.
