The at-home future of vision research is decidedly less certain. The incoming Trump administration has already signaled their desire to impose deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Under the latest budget proposal, NIH’s current funding level would be reduced by $18 billion. That equates to a staggering 38% cut from the current $48.5 billion. This proposal comes on the heels of a controversial restructuring plan. It seeks to collapse the current 27 National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes down to only five, a move that endangers the National Eye Institute (NEI) siblings to be merged into the new, much larger National Institute of Neuroscience and Brain Research.
During a panel at the ARVO 2025 Annual Meeting, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research executive director Dan Ignaszewski warned of dire implications. He channeled his rage in impassioned speeches against the proposed cuts that would devastate eye and vision research. Ignaszewski pointed to the increased risk from cutting the institutes’ number. This action threatens to unravel decades of progress in biomedical research and the infrastructure that has supported progress in medical science.
Proposed Consolidation Raises Concerns
The Trump administration’s budget proposal would not only cut funding but would replace the administrative structure of NIH with a radical scheme. The NEI has been instrumental in pushing R&D for the best eye health forward. Currently, it would combine with a bigger NIH neuroscience and Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative. As the lead agency, this consolidation will move under the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. It would further bring the transitioning National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke into the new organizational scheme.
Ignaszewski remarked on the inappropriateness of this merger, stating, “Shoehorning NEI into an institute focused on the brain is not an appropriate fit.” Yet even as this shift is happening, the research community has been sounding alarm bells about the loss of specialized focus. … [R]adical solutions, they’re concerned, will further spread attention away from the most important aspects of our eye health.
The changes the Administration is proposing are far worse the cuts the House Committee on Energy and Commerce proposed last year. That committee’s solution was to recommend cutting the number of institutes from 27 to 15. Even this more moderate proposal has already sent researchers into a tizzy. Now, compounded by intentions to slice even further, the future of vision research is under an unprecedented threat.
Indirect Cost Caps Spark Controversy
This year, the Trump administration attempted to limit all federally funded research to a 15% cap on indirect costs. Yet, at the same time, they endured severe funding cuts over this period. Ignaszewski agrees that this cap is “arbitrary and capricious.” In stark contrast to the rosy picture painted above, he highlights its capacity to obliterate research infrastructure.
A federal judge stepped in already by issuing a temporary restraining order to stop this cap from going into effect, but the danger still exists. Ignaszewski stated, “Frankly, if it does go into effect, it would fundamentally alter the investment we have in biomedical research.” A cap of this magnitude would be catastrophic. It would substantially reduce the total number of staffs and institutions, thereby reducing opportunities for trainees located within research universities.
“Institutions around the country are being cautious about their budgets, and that’s being reflected in fewer staff, fewer trainees, and fewer PhD candidates.” Together, these trends spell trouble for the long-term sustainability of vision research — and by extension, other vital research fields within the biomedical science enterprise.
Advocating for Vision Research
Ignaszewski urged attendees at the ARVO meeting to take an active role in advocacy efforts to preserve funding for vision research. He stated, “What we need now more than ever is that people in the advocacy space — researchers, clinicians, patients, providers, industry — to basically come together to help the administration and Congress understand the value of research.”
He emphasized that engaging stakeholders is essential not only for preserving funding but for ensuring that vision research maintains its critical role within the broader biomedical landscape. “It’s engaging patients and providers and industry to basically come together to really help the administration understand that these reductions would fundamentally change research funding,” he said.
The combined advocacy and experience of research and advocates is needed now more than ever as they continue to contend with these growing issues. Ignaszewski concluded with a call to action: “Our big take-home is engaging researchers to learn to effectively advocate for vision research science and science as a whole.”
Leave a Reply