For biomedical and public health researchers at institutions like the University of Wisconsin-Madison, funding unpredictability has come to define the past year. Delays in grant dispersal and looming threats to the National Institutes of Health budget, the U.S’s largest funder of biomedical research, have left many wondering what is next.
“The primary challenge is uncertainty, which makes it harder to plan research projects, retain personnel and manage labs efficiently,” said Anjon Audhya, a dean at the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. “Delays and unpredictability increase administrative burden and slow scientific progress, threatening the nation’s position as global research leader.”
Funding preserved, but not delivered
Congress ultimately rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to cut $18 billion from the NIH budget, but UW-Madison Vice Chancellor of Research Dorota Brzezinska said funding delays have already stalled projects and affected hiring decisions for staff and graduate students.
“Congress’s recent decision to protect core federal research funding has added critical stability,” Brzezinska said in a statement to The Daily Cardinal. “Yet challenges and uncertainty remain… that money isn't yet making it into the hands of researchers.”
The NIH is still months behind on grant review meetings and dispersing money to 2026 grantees.
“Some researchers have experienced delays at various stages of the NIH funding process, which can extend research timelines and complicate lab operations as well as cause uncertainty and anxiety,” Audhya said, noting that UW-Madison has bridge funding to mitigate short-term disruptions.
Brzezinska added that compressed timelines may strain labs with multiyear grants. She said many programs may be pushed into the next fiscal year.
“With the number of grant awards dropping, funding is uncertain for the foreseeable future. If an apportionment does arrive, the NIH will need to obligate a large amount of funding before the Sept. 30 deadline,” she said.
UW-Madison research at risk
Federal grants are foundational to maintaining UW-Madison’s top research rankings. Nearly half of its $1.93 billion in research expenditures come from federal sources, with NIH support making up nearly $400 million.
According to Audhya, about 75% of UW-Madison’s NIH funding goes to the School of Medicine and Public Health.
“At a time when global competitors are accelerating their investments in biomedical research, America cannot afford to fall behind,” Brzezinska said.
Every dollar from the NIH generated $2.56 of economic activity in the 2024 fiscal year.
NIH grants have enabled breakthroughs at UW-Madison, including the first 3-D printed functional brain and use of nanoparticles to correct a gene causing blindness.
They’re also “the biggest part of what supports cancer research at almost every academic institution,” said Zachary Morris, associate professor and chair of the Department of Human Oncology. “[NIH funding] is the critical driver of innovation and progress across all kinds of health research.”
Competition and cuts
Even when funding amounts are maintained, securing grants is increasingly difficult.
“Every grant is carefully scrutinized by multiple expert reviewers, and the vast majority of proposals, even good ones, don’t get funded,” Morris said. “It’s not just the great ideas that get funded. It’s the great ones that are also lucky.”
The number of researchers receiving R01 grants, the oldest and largest NIH grant mechanism, fell from 7,720 in 2024 to 5,885 in 2025. Funding rates also dropped, from 26% to 19% for early-career investigators and from 27% to 20% for established researchers, between 2024 and 2025.
This pressure is reshaping career expectations in medical science.
“There used to be this promise that if you were a contributor in your field and you did really great research, you would have some level of comfort,” said Jenson Aaron, a senior at UW-Madison working in the NIH-funded Glukhov Lab. “I don't really think that's the case anymore.”
Some disruptions go beyond increasing competition. A policy ending the use of human fetal tissue in NIH-supported research forced Dr. Anita Bhattacharyya, associate professor of cell and regenerative biology, to immediately halt experiments.
“We had to stop any experiments that were in progress on tissue. We also had to identify alternate funding sources to continue the experiments,” Bhattacharyya said. “We have received no information from NIH to know whether we can use NIH funding to analyze data that was generated from fetal tissue.”
Bhattacharyya said fetal tissue research provides insights other methods cannot, and there are established ethical and legal frameworks for its use.
“In some cases, fetal tissue is the best science and is needed to validate other experimental models,” Bhattacharyya said.
Impacts on students, early-career scientists
Graduate students in Bhattarcharyya’s lab are unsure how to proceed.
“They are not sure if they can include data from fetal tissue in their theses, or how to plan additional experiments, until we have more information or alternative funding. The policy creates stress and uncertainty,” Bhattacharyya said.
And at the undergraduate level, research opportunities are shrinking.
“Now is the worst time to be an undergraduate who wants to go into research,” said Aaron, who is also the founder of the Mu Epsilon Delta medical fraternity. “Tons of undergrads are no longer able to be in their labs because their labs got shut down, or they had to restructure due to a lack of funding.”
For Aaron, working in the Glukhov lab has offered hands-on experience with research techniques, presentations at internationally renowned conferences and co-authorship on a paper pending publication in the American Journal of Physiology.
“No matter where I end up in medicine, I know that I want to prioritize research,” he said.
Morris said NIH funding uncertainty is turning students away from medical research. While projects can resume when funding returns, he said it is much harder to reverse a loss of talent in the field.
“The workforce, the career paths and the people we turn away from science, who could have been the talented, brilliant person to make this discovery… it's harder to reverse the course of that. The longer that we throttle back, the longer that impact will be,” he said.
UW-Madison looks beyond federal funding
In response, UW-Madison encourages funding diversification.
“UW-Madison is encouraging researchers to pursue non-federal funding, including support from foundations, nonprofit organizations and industry research partners,” Audhya said. “The school shares information sources each week highlighting these opportunities.”
Audhya noted that while private funding helps, it “cannot fully replace sustained federal investment, particularly for early-career investigators.”
“NIH has been the foundation of our nation’s biomedical innovation ecosystem,” Brzezinska said.
In such a critical area of science, researchers say the stakes extend far beyond universities.
“We’ve made great strides in cancer treatment… All of that progress has happened because of investments in research,” Morris said.
Aaron said NIH funding enables essential experimental trials that could save lives.
“When you have a loved one that is sick, the question that’s asked is: ‘Isn't there anything that you can do?’” Aaron said. “The answer depends on the research that has already been done… Without basic science research, there's no clinical trials as a last-resort or life saving measure.”
Scientific breakthroughs generated by NIH-supported research are behind many of the gains the U.S. has enjoyed over the last century, including gains in average life expectancy and drops in cancer deaths.
“Disease doesn’t care what someone’s politics are,” Morris said. “We all want better treatments and fewer side effects, and research is how we get there.”
