Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs
Fred Hutch Cancer Center oncologist Dr. Peter Nelson, left, explains his lab’s research to Congresswoman Suzan DelBene as Dr. Tom Lynch, Fred Hutch president and director, looks on. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler)
Leaders and researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center didn’t mince words on Tuesday when describing the potential impact of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to overhead funding.
If the cuts were go into effect, “it would have a chilling, dramatic, horrific effect on our ability to do research,” said Dr. Tom Lynch, president and director of the Seattle institution.
Almost two weeks ago, the National Institutes for Health without warning announced it was capping its funding for so called “indirect costs,” which would slash the budgets for research and medical centers across the country. The funds are used to pay for electricity and heat, internet access, rent, administrative services, dangerous waste management, veterinary support for animal research, and other expenses.
Attorneys general for 22 states quickly filed a lawsuit, and a U.S. District Court judge granted an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order the day the cuts were to take effect.
Washington Congresswoman Suzan DelBene visited the Fred Hutch and toured a research lab to better understand how the grant dollars are being used, and what’s at stake if the Trump administration succeeds in reducing funding.
Grant recipients nationwide have for decades negotiated their indirect cost rates. The rate for Fred Hutch is 76%, which is on the high end. The NIH is seeking to institute a universal 15% cap — a limit that would wipe out roughly $125 million in annual support for the cancer center. The organization provides therapies for more than 40,000 patients annually.
Other flagship Pacific Northwest institutions such as the University of Washington, Washington State University, PATH, Seattle Children’s, biotech companies and many others are likewise at risk of hobbling cuts to their NIH support.
DelBene met with Dr. Peter Nelson, director of the Stuart and Molly Sloan Precision Oncology Institute at Fred Hutch, to hear how his work would be impacted. Nelson studies prostate cancer, the most common kind of cancer among men, in an effort to find targeted treatments with fewer side effects.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center campus in Seattle. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler)
While the judge’s order has protected the NIH funding, what comes next has been called into question — creating a challenging situation given the timelines required for scientific investigations.
“You now have to rethink what you’re actually going to do on a day-to-day basis because of that uncertainty,” Nelson said. “When we’re hiring and recruiting the next best-and-brightest research technicians or graduate students or trainees, it’s hard to give them assurance that we can hire them for a year or two years to carry out a research project.”
In pursuit of budgetary savings, the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are aiming to dramatically cut federal support for wide-ranging government programs. The indirect funds are sometimes characterized — or mischaracterized, Lynch would argue — as a slush fund for items including salaries unrelated to research or for diversity and inclusion programs under attack by Trump.
The administration calls the overhead spending “bloat.”
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in an earlier statement to Fox News Digital.
The NIH directive set the rate at 15% because foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Rockefeller Foundation and others limit indirect cost rates between 10% and 15%, depending on the foundation and recipient.
Lynch said his organization rarely accept philanthropic gifts that lack sufficient indirect support. If it does, it has to search for dollars from other sources such as financial returns from biotech spinouts from the Fred Hutch, interest from assets, or events including its annual Obliteride, a fundraiser including a bike ride.
Yet donors are most eager to give when the dollars go for research projects and scientists.
Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, left, and Dr. Tom Lynch, Fred Hutch Cancer Center president and director, on a center visit on Feb. 18, 2025. (Fred Hutch Photo)
“Why do people ride bikes for the Fred Hutch? Why do people do that? They do that for cancer, innovation for new things,” Lynch said. “They don’t do it to pay electrical bills in the buildings.”
The proposed NIH cuts followed the Office of Management and Budget memorandum in January that put a temporary halt on a vast range of government payments, which was also blocked by a federal judge before taking effect. The OMB rescinded the directive — but the fear remains for researchers.
When she returns to the nation’s capitol, DelBene said she’ll work to make sure that funding already appropriated by Congress is being allocated as judges have ordered. The country also faces a partial government shutdown on March 15 if lawmakers can’t agree on a stopgap spending bill. Many Democrats see the spending debate as one of the party’s few tools for opposing recent actions by the Trump administration and Republicans.
DelBene said she’ll relate some of what she saw at the Fred Hutch.
Cures for diseases, the investments in research and clinical trials, and the jobs in communities across the country, DelBene said, “all of that has been bipartisan in the past and have given us incredible results in terms of breakthroughs and treatments.”
“And we’re on the brink of another great wave of breakthroughs and treatments,” DelBene added. “But if we stop investing, we’ll be in a dangerous place.”
RELATED: What’s at stake for Washington’s flagship research institutions in the legal battle over NIH funding
