In the face of federal cuts for medical and scientific research funding, various associations have pushed back, while seeking alternative means of support for initiatives.

A report published Monday by JAMA Internal Medicine found that more than 74,000 participants in medical trials were affected by policies surrounding funding for the National Institutes of Health. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced its intention to slash $800 million from the NIH budget, citing issues related to DEI. In August, the Supreme Court approved the administration’s move to pause funding.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, a group of medical associations and other groups that have approved and administered NIH-funded research grants, led by the Association of American Medical Colleges, filed an amicus brief protesting the move. [PDF] “By terminating grants midstream…NIH has destabilized every aspect of biomedical research,” the brief said. 

According to the JAMA Internal Medicine report, research into respiratory and infectious diseases have been most deeply affected by the funding cuts. Groups like the American Lung Association have pressed its members and the public to contact lawmakers to restore funding. But in the meantime it has looked for ways to preserve what funding it can. Late last month the ALA’s Research Institute announced that it would deliver $22 million in research funding, in line with previous years.

Maria Brancato, Senior Director of the Research Institute, said the need for associations to look for alternatives is particularly acute. “The past year has been really challenging for the research community,” she said. “Federal funding shifts and delays have made things tough not only for nonprofits but research institutions and investigators alike.”

Brancato said that one area where funding is focused is on younger researchers, who are particularly affected by funding cuts. As the associations’ Supreme Court amicus brief noted, “the government’s actions here have outsized effects on young researchers at the outset of their careers. By ending pipeline training grants, NIH has removed critical opportunities for developing scientists to advance and gain research experience.” Brancato said the current batch of ALA funding supports 36 early-career scientists.

“The current landscape is very difficult for them, because they’re building their first labs and research programs in an environment where institutional resources are stretched very thin,” she said. 

ALA is also bringing in more peer reviewers to assess more grant applications, and trying to host conversations around funding alternatives.

“We have been working very closely with our development team to ensure sustainability of critical studies when federal dollars are delayed or uncertain,” she said. “We have been hosting webinars and discussion sessions that bring our researchers together to talk about NIH funding changes. We share updates and ask questions in real time. It’s been a great way to surface the challenges people are facing on the ground and get feedback from experts across our network on possible solutions.”

Despite the current challenges in the funding landscape, Brancato said she is confident the Research Institute can find ways to continue funding at its current levels.

“We are remaining steady with our research dollars and our funding,” she said. “We had $22 million invested in 2024, $22 million invested in 2025. Obviously, this might change, but I anticipate that we will continue to invest the same amount moving forward, if not more.”