US Supreme Court allows NIH to cut $2B in research grants

Summary

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can go ahead with cuts to active research grants.Credit: Perry Spring/iStock via GettyThe US Supreme Court has derailed researchers’ efforts to reinstate almost $2 billion in research grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The court’s decision on Thursday represents a remarkable reversal, allowing the administration of US President Donald Trump to proceed with science cuts it began in late February.‘We were ready for this’: meet the scientists suing the Trump administration to reinstate terminated grantsIn a divided decision, the high court held that lawsuits filed by researchers to reinstate grants should have been reviewed by a court specializing in contracts, rather than the district court they were filed in. But the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the district court could review the NIH’s guidelines used to make the grant terminations and left in place the lower court’s order that the guidelines are illegal and should not be used. The lower court said in June that the grant cuts made by the Trump administration in relation to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) amounted to racial discrimination.Although the Supreme Court ruled partially in the researchers’ favour, some scientists say the decision amounts to a de-facto win by the Trump administration, because the time and cost of challenging their terminations in a different court will be prohibitive. And it could spell doom for other legal efforts, such as one by a group of University of California researchers, to reinstate their funding from other agencies such as the US National Science Foundation.“In a scientific sense, this is a total loss,” says Jenna Norton, a programme officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the NIH. “The trust and certainty that is so critical to successfully conduct research has been completely obliterated by this ruling.”“What...