The National Institutes of Health has been the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. Its support helps translate basic science into biomedical therapies and technologies, providing funding for nearly all treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019. This enables the U.S. to lead global research while maintaining transparency and preventing research misconduct.

While the legality of directives to shrink the NIH is unclear, the Trump administration’s actions have already led to suspended clinical trials, institutional hiring freezes and layoffs, rescinded graduate student admissions, and canceled federal grant review meetings. Researchers at affected universities say that funding will delay or possibly eliminate ongoing studies on critical conditions like cancer and Alzheimer’s.

It is clear to us, as legal and bioethics scholars whose research often focuses on the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging biotechnologies, that these directives will have profoundly negative consequences for medical research and human health, with ripple effects that will last decades. Our scholarship demonstrates that in order to contribute to knowledge and, ultimately, to biomedical treatments, medical research at every stage depends on significant infrastructure support and ethical oversight.

Our recent focus on brain organoid research – 3D lab models grown from human stem cells that simulate brain structure and function – shows how federal support for research is key to not only promote innovation, but to protect participants and future patients.

History of NIH and research ethics

The National Institutes of Health began as a one-room laboratory within the Marine Hospital Service in 1887. After World War I, chemists involved in the war effort sought to apply their knowledge to medicine. They partnered with Louisiana Sen. Joseph E. Ransdell who, motivated by the devastation of malaria, yellow fever and the 1928 influenza pandemic, introduced federal legislation to support basic research and fund fellowships focusing on solving medical problems.

By World War II, biomedical advances like surgical techniques and antibiotics had proved vital on the battlefield. Survival rates increased from 4% during World War I to 50% in World War II. Congress passed the 1944 Public Health Services Act to expand NIH’s authority to fund biomedical research at public and private institutions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it “as sound an investment as any Government can make; the dividends are payable in human life and health.”

As science advanced, so did the need for guardrails. After World War II, among the top Nazi leaders prosecuted for war crimes were physicians who conducted experiments on people without consent, such as exposure to hypothermia and infectious disease. The verdicts of these Doctors’ Trials included 10 points about ethical human research that became the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing voluntary consent to participation, societal benefit as the goal of human research, and significant limitations on permissible risks of harm. The World Medical Association established complementary international guidelines for physician-researchers in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

In the 1970s, information about the Tuskegee study – a deceptive and unethical 40-year study of untreated syphilis in Black men – came to light. The researchers told study participants they would be given treatment but did not give them medication. They also prevented participants from accessing a cure when it became available in order to study the disease as it progressed. The men enrolled in the study experienced significant health problems, including blindness, mental impairment and death.

The public outrage that followed starkly demonstrated that the U.S. couldn’t simply rely on international guidelines but needed federal standards on research ethics. As a result, the National Research Act of 1974 led to the Belmont Report, which identified ethical principles essential to human research: respect for persons, beneficence and justice.

Federal regulations reinforced these principles by requiring all federally funded research to comply with rigorous ethical standards for human research. By prohibiting financial conflicts of interest and by implementing an independent ethics review process, new policies helped ensure that federally supported research has scientific and social value, is scientifically valid, fairly selects and adequately protects participants.

These standards and recommendations guide both federally and nonfederally funded research today. The breadth of NIH’s mandate and budget has provided not only the essential structure for research oversight, but also key resources for ethics consultation and advice.

Brain organoids and the need for ethical inquiry

Biomedical research on cell and animal models requires extensive ethics oversight systems that complement those for human research. Our research on the ethical and policy issues of human brain organoid research provides a good example of the complexities of biomedical research and the infrastructure and oversight mechanisms necessary to support it.

Organoid research is increasing in importance, as the FDA wants to expand its use as an alternative to using animals to test new drugs before administering them to humans. Because these models can simulate brain structure and function, brain organoid research is integral to developing and testing potential treatments for brain diseases and conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and cancer. Brain organoids are also useful for personalized and regenerative medicine, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces and other biotechnologies.

Brain organoids are built on knowledge about the fundamentals of biology that was developed primarily in universities receiving federal funding. Organoid technology began in 1907 with research on sponge cells, and continued in the 1980s with advances in stem cell research. Since researchers generated the first human organoid in 2009, the field has rapidly expanded.

These advances were only possible through federally supported research infrastructure, which helps ensure the quality of all biomedical research. Indirect costs cover operational expenses necessary to maintain research safety and ethics, including utilities, administrative support, biohazard handling and regulatory compliance. In these ways, federally supported research infrastructure protects and promotes the scientific and ethical value of biotechnologies like brain organoids.

Brain organoid research requires significant scientific and ethical inquiry to safely reach its future potential. It raises potential moral and legal questions about donor consent, the extent to which organoids should be grown and how they should be disposed, and consciousness and personhood. As science progresses, infrastructure for oversight can help ensure these ethical and societal issues are addressed.

New frontiers in scientific research

Since World War II, there has been bipartisan support for scientific innovation, in part because it is an economic and national security imperative. As Harvard University President Alan Garber recently wrote, “[n]ew frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances. … For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.”

Cuts to research overhead may seem like easy savings, but it fails to account for the infrastructure that provides essential support for scientific innovation. The investment the NIH has put into academic research is significantly paid forward, adding nearly US$95 billion to local economies in fiscal year 2024, or $2.46 for every $1 of grant funding. NIH funding had also supported over 407,700 jobs that year.

President Donald Trump pledged to “unleash the power of American innovation” to battle brain-based diseases when he accepted his second Republican nomination for president. Around 6.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer’s, and over a million more suffer from Parkinson’s. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed with aggressive brain cancers each year, and 20% of the population experiences varying forms of mental illness at any one time. These numbers are expected to grow considerably, possibly doubling by 2050.

Organoid research is just one of the essential components in the process of learning about the brain and using that knowledge to find better treatment for diseases affecting the brain.

Science benefits society only if it is rigorous, ethically conducted and fairly funded. Current NIH policy directives and steep cuts to the agency’s size and budget, along with attacks on universities, undermine globally shared goals of increasing understanding and improving human health.

The federal system of overseeing and funding biomedical science may need a scalpel, but to defund efforts based on “efficiency” is to wield a chainsaw.

Christine Coughlin, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University and Nancy M. P. King, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Despite how much humans rely on insects, our actions are reducing their populations in many parts of the world. A recent study found that the United States lost more than 20% of its butterflies over the past two decades. Sadly, this rate of decline is not unusual. Many studies have found that insect populations are declining at 1% to 2% per year.

To understand why this is happening, Status of Insects, an international research group we are part of, reviewed 175 recent studies on the causes of insect decline. We found hundreds of potential causes that are all highly connected, almost all of which stem directly or indirectly from human activities.

The drivers of insect decline are connected

The causes of insect decline are led by a few major sources: intensive agriculture, climate change, pollution, invasive species and habitat loss. Some drivers are bigger threats than others, but all of them play a role in causing insect declines.

Importantly, many insects experience more than one of these stressors at the same time.

Urban risks

Picture a moth in a city park. It is threatened by habitat loss as the city grows, but its habitat may also be threatened by invasive plants that escape from gardens. At the same time, it is suffering from the effects of pollution – light, air and noise pollution are common in urban areas.

Light pollution is especially important for moths because they are attracted to artificial lights at night, and so are their predators. Spiders, for example, have learned to hunt in lit areas. When moth species that fly at night spend a lot of time around lights, they can expend a lot of energy, leaving less for other activities, such as pollinating plants.

In addition to being pollinators, moths also control plant growth by eating leaves during their caterpillar stage. And they provide food for many species of birds and bats, which play their own important roles in ecosystems.

Risks on farmland and orchards

Intensive agriculture is one of the most commonly discussed drivers of insect decline. It is also heavily connected to other causes.

Consider native bees in agricultural areas. As agriculture expands, their native habitat is reduced. Agricultural landscapes also tend to have high levels of chemical pollution – especially insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers. Insecticides are designed to disrupt insect physiology and can directly harm bees, while herbicides indirectly disrupt bees by removing plants that provide food.

Often, U.S. farms also use honeybees, native to Europe, for pollination. These introduced bees are easier to manage but can spread diseases and parasites into native bee populations.

Native bees may be able to survive one of these threats, but all three together present a much bigger challenge.

Polluted water can also harm insects

Humans often focus on insects such as bees and butterflies because they are more visible, but many insects spend much of their life underwater, where they face another set of threats.

For instance, dragonflies are aquatic when they are juveniles. The threats at this stage of life are no less severe but are entirely different from those facing adults.

When water levels in streams or ponds decrease, that reduces young dragonflies’ habitat. These insects can also be threatened by water pollution from runoff and increases in water temperature with climate change.

Successful conservation considers all the risks

These connections mean humans must be thoughtful about conservation.

Well-meaning actions such as reducing pollution or controlling invasive species can help, but they will have little effect if there is no habitat for insects to return to. Restoring habitat can have widespread benefits and potentially help insects respond to other threats.

There are more insect species on Earth than species in any other plant or animal group. They can be found almost everywhere you look.

Yet public attention is mostly focused on pollinators. That can leave other insects facing unaddressed human threats.

Preserving and restoring water resources such as wetlands, lakes and streams is vital for aquatic insects like dragonflies. Many other insects spend much of their lives underground. Soil-dwelling insects, such as some beetles and flies, serve important functions, like decomposing dead plant material.

Successful conservation also considers species throughout their life cycles. For instance, planting pollinator gardens provides nectar for adult hoverflies – an important but often overlooked pollinator. But a garden alone would not necessarily provide food for their larval stage, when many hoverflies decompose plant and animal matter.

How to help insects

The simplest way to help insects is by providing high-quality habitats.

This includes supporting a variety of native plants that can provide both nectar and leaves, which are food for many herbivorous insects throughout their lives.

A good habitat also provides places for insects to nest, such as bare ground or leaf litter. Bigger patches are better, but even small gardens can be helpful.

At the same time, limiting exposure to other threats is important. Actions such as dimming artificial lights at night and reducing the use of pesticides can help.

There are many reasons for insect decline, making population recovery an imposing challenge. But there are also many ways – large and small – that people, cities and companies can reduce the harm and help these valuable critters thrive.

Christopher Halsch, Ecologist, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Eliza Grames, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Mars, one of our closest planetary neighbors, has fascinated people for hundreds of years, partly because it is so similar to Earth. It is about the same size, contains similar rocks and minerals, and is not too much farther out from the Sun.

Because Mars and Earth share so many features, scientists have long wondered whether Mars could have once harbored life. Today, Mars is very cold and dry, with little atmosphere and no liquid water on the surface − traits that make it a hostile environment for life. But some observations suggest that ancient Mars may have been warmer, wetter and more favorable for life.

Even though scientists observing the surface of Mars conclude that it was once warmer than it is today, they haven’t been able to find much concrete evidence for what caused it to be warmer. But a study my colleagues and I published in April 2025 indicates the presence of carbonate minerals on the planet, which could help solve this puzzle.

Carbonate minerals contain carbon dioxide, which, when present in the atmosphere, warms a planet. These minerals suggest that carbon dioxide could have previously existed in the atmosphere in larger quantities and provide exciting new clues about ancient Mars’ environment.

As a geochemist and astrobiologist who has studied Mars for more than 15 years, I am fascinated by Mars’ past and the idea that it could have been habitable.

Ancient carbon cycle on past Mars

Observations of Mars from orbiting satellites and rovers show river channels and dry lakes that suggest the Martian surface once had liquid water. And these instruments have spotted minerals on its surface that scientists can analyze to get an idea of what Mars may have been like in the past.

If ancient Mars had liquid water, it would have needed a much warmer climate than it has today. Warmer planets usually have thick atmospheres that trap heat. So, perhaps the Martian atmosphere used to be thicker and composed of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. If Mars did once have a thicker carbon dioxide-containing atmosphere, scientists predict that they’d be able to see traces of that atmospheric carbon dioxide on the surface of Mars today.

Gaseous carbon dioxide dissolves in water, a chemical process that can ultimately contribute to formation of solid minerals at and below the surface of a planet − essentially removing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Lots of scientists have previously tried to find carbonate minerals on the surface of Mars, and part of the excitement about a warmer, wetter early Mars is that it could have been a suitable environment for ancient microbial life.

Finding carbonates on Mars

Previous searches for carbonates on Mars have turned up observations of carbonates in meteorites and at two craters on Mars: Gusev crater and Jezero crater. But there wasn’t enough to explain a warmer past climate on Mars.

For the past few years, the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover has been traversing a region called Gale crater. Here, the rover’s chemistry and mineralogy instrument has discovered lots of the iron-rich carbonate mineral siderite.

As my colleagues and I detail in our new study about these results, this carbonate mineral could contain some of the missing atmospheric carbon dioxide needed for a warmer, wetter early Mars.

The rover also found iron oxyhydroxide minerals that suggest some of these rocks later dissolved when they encountered water, releasing a portion of their carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Although it is very thin, the modern Martian atmosphere is still composed mainly of carbon dioxide.

In other words, these new results provide evidence for an ancient carbon cycle on Mars. Carbon cycles are the processes that transfer carbon dioxide between different reservoirs − such as rocks on the surface and gas in the atmosphere.

Potential habitats for past microbial life on Mars

Scientists generally consider an environment habitable for microbial life if it contains liquid water; nutrients such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur and necessary trace elements; an energy source; and conditions that were not too harsh − not too acidic, too salty or too hot, for example.

Since observations from Gale crater and other locations on Mars show that Mars likely had habitable conditions, could Mars then have hosted life? And if it did, how would researchers be able to tell?

Although microorganisms are too small for the human eye to detect, they can leave evidence of themselves preserved in rocks, sediments and soils. Organic molecules from within these microorganisms are sometimes preserved in rocks and sediments. And some microbes can form minerals or have cells that can form certain shapes. This type of evidence for past life is called a biosignature.

Collecting Mars samples

If Mars has biosignatures on or near the surface, researchers want to know that they have the right tools to detect them.

So far, the rovers on Mars have found some organic molecules and chemical signatures that could have come from either abiotic − nonliving − sources or past life.

However, determining whether the planet used to host life isn’t easy. Analyses run in Earth’s laboratories could provide more clarity around where these signatures came from.

To that end, the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover has been collecting and sealing samples on Mars, with one cache placed on the surface of Mars and another cache remaining on the rover.

These caches include samples of rock, soil and atmosphere. Their contents can tell researchers about many aspects of the history of Mars, including past volcanic activity, meteorite impacts, streams and lakes, wind and dust storms, and potential past Martian life. If these samples are brought to Earth, scientists could examine them here for signs of ancient life on another planet.

Elisabeth M. Hausrath, Professor of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.