In the early days of the second Trump administration, a directive to pause all public communication from the Department of Health and Human Services created uncertainty and anxiety among biomedical researchers in the U.S. This directive halted key operations of numerous federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, including those critical to advancing science and medicine.

These operations included a hiring freeze, travel bans and a pause on publishing regulations, guidance documents and other communications. The directive also suspended the grant review panels that determine which research projects receive funding.

As a result of these disruptions, NIH staff has reported being unable to meet with study participants or recruit patients into clinical trials, delays submitting research findings to science journals, and rescinded job offers.

Shorter communication freezes in the first few days of a new administration aren’t uncommon. But the consequences of a freeze lasting weeks or potentially longer underscore the critical role the federal government plays in supporting biomedical research. It also brings the intricate processes through which federal research grants are evaluated and awarded into the spotlight.

I am a member of a federal research grant review panel, as well as a scientist whose own projects have undergone this review process. My experience with the NIH has shown me that these panels come to a decision on the best science to fund through rigorous review and careful vetting.

How NIH study sections work

At the heart of the NIH’s mission to advance biomedical research is a careful and transparent peer review process. Key to this process are study sections – panels of scientists and subject matter experts tasked with evaluating grant applications for scientific and technical merit. Study sections are overseen by the Center for Scientific Review, the NIH’s portal for all incoming grant proposals.

A typical study section consists of dozens of reviewers selected based on their expertise in relevant fields and with careful screening for any conflicts of interest. These scientists are a mix of permanent members and temporary participants.

I have had the privilege of serving as a permanent chartered member of an NIH study section for several years. This role requires a commitment of four to six years and provides an in-depth understanding of the peer review process. Despite media reports and social media posts indicating that many other panels have been canceled, a section meeting I have scheduled in February 2025 is currently proceeding as planned.

Reviewers analyze applications using key criteria, including the significance and innovation of the research, the qualifications and training of the investigators, the feasibility and rigor of the study design, and the environment the work will be conducted in. Each criterion is scored and combined into an overall impact score. Applications with the highest scores are sent to the next stage, where reviewers meet to discuss and assign final rankings.

Because no system is perfect, the NIH is constantly reevaluating its review process for potential improvements. For example, in a change that was proposed in 2024, new submissions from Jan. 25, 2025, onward will be reviewed using an updated scoring system that does not rate the investigator and environment but takes these criteria into account in the overall impact score. This change improves the process by increasing the focus of the review on the quality and impact of the science.

From review to award

Following peer review, applications are passed to the NIH’s funding institutes and centers, such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or the National Cancer Institute, where program officials assess the applications’ alignment with the priorities and budgets of institutes’ relevant research programs.

A second tier of review is conducted by advisory councils composed of scientists, clinicians and public representatives. In my experience, study section scores and comments typically carry the greatest weight. Public health needs, policy directives and ensuring that one type of research is not overrepresented relative to other areas are also considered in funding decisions. These factors can change with shifts in administrative priorities.

Grant awards are typically announced several months after the review process, although administrative freezes or budgetary uncertainties can extend this timeline. Last year, approximately US$40 billion was awarded for biomedical research, largely through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at over 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions across the U.S.

Getting federal funding for research is a highly competitive process. On average, only 1 in 5 grant applications is funded.

Consequences of an administrative freeze

The Trump administration’s initial freeze paused some of the steps in the federal research grant review process. Some study section meetings have been postponed indefinitely, and program officials faced delays in processing applications. Some research groups relying on NIH funding for ongoing projects can face cash flow challenges, potentially resulting in a need to scale back research activities or temporarily reassign staff.

Because my own study section meeting is still scheduled to take place in February, I believe these pauses are temporary. This is consistent with a recent follow-up memo from acting HHS Secretary Dorothy Fink, stating that the directive would be in effect through Feb. 1.

Importantly, the pause underscores the fragility of the research funding pipeline and the cascading effects of administrative uncertainty. Early-career scientists who often rely on timely grant awards to establish their labs are particularly vulnerable, heightening concerns about workforce sustainability in biomedical research.

As the NIH and research community navigate these pauses, this chapter serves as a reminder of the critical importance of stable and predictable funding systems. Biomedical research in the U.S. has historically maintained bipartisan support. Protecting the NIH’s mission of advancing human health from political or administrative turbulence is critical to ensure that the pursuit of scientific innovation and public health remains uncompromised.

Aliasger K. Salem, Associate Vice President for Research and Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iowa

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

The highly contagious norovirus – popularly known as “stomach flu” or the “winter vomiting bug” – is now surging through the U.S.. The number of outbreaks is up significantly over previous years, possibly due in part to a new strain of the virus. Outbreaks can occur after direct contact with someone who is infected. Food and household surfaces can also become contaminated.

William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the symptoms of norovirus, how best to treat it, and the populations most vulnerable to this illness.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.

What are the symptoms of a norovirus infection?

William Schaffner: Norovirus is an intestinal virus that can make you very, very sick. It is indelicately called winter vomiting disease, and it begins suddenly, often with an explosive vomit that then repeats itself.

Norovirus can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time, along with a fever. It will probably make you feel miserable for two or three days – but then everybody pretty much recovers.

How should norovirus be treated?

William Schaffner: The major problem norovirus causes is dehydration from all that vomiting and diarrhea. So you have to stay hydrated. Do this with little sips of clear liquids, because if you take too much, it’ll come right back up. Sports drinks are very good.

Most people who get into trouble are either very young or older and more frail. They may have to go to the hospital to get rehydrated with an IV. When the occasional death occurs due to this dehydrating infection, it’s in those vulnerable populations.

Why does norovirus tend to surge during the winter?

William Schaffner: You can get it any time of the year, but there is a seasonal increase in the winter for reasons that scientists are not quite sure of. But people spend a lot of time indoors with each other in wintertime, so that makes it easier for the virus to get from one place to another. All that travel over the holidays, as well as family gatherings and parties, can spread the virus.

How can people protect themselves from the norovirus?

William Schaffner: The most important thing is good hand hygiene. Washing with soap and water works the best. Those hand hygiene gels and wipes – the hand sanitizers – that people tend to use aren’t as effective against norovirus, so just wash frequently with good old soap and water. And then, of course, avoid people who are sick.

Also, remember that the virus can survive on environmental surfaces, like counters, doorknobs and tables. You don’t want to pick up those viruses on your fingers. If you get a little bit of virus on your fingertips and then touch your lips, you can get an infection because it just takes a small dose of the virus to make you sick.

Who’s particularly vulnerable to norovirus?

William Schaffner: The people who are more susceptible to catching it are those living in semi-enclosed or enclosed populations. For example, people in nursing homes, schools and prisons – essentially any circumstance where people are together for a long period of time.

Another place where the virus can spread is cruise ships, which is why norovirus is also called the cruise ship virus. When people are confined on a ship for days and days, these outbreaks can run through most of the passengers.

Interestingly enough – and this has never been well explained – the crew is usually less affected.

But again, the most serious illness occurs in older, frail and immune-compromised people, or in the very young, where dehydration can be more serious.

Where’s the research on developing a norovirus vaccine?

William Schaffner: Norovirus has presented some scientific challenges. It’s actually rather difficult to grow in the laboratory, and so that has delayed the development of a vaccine. But researchers are working on it.

Are there other infectious diseases going around right now?

William Schaffner: Along with norovirus, respiratory viruses are still out there: influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. They’re all perking up at the same time. It looks as though we’re having a very brisk winter viral season.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

William Schaffner, Professor of preventive medicine, health policy, infectious diseses, Vanderbilt University

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