The National Institute of Health: Where are we going? What are we worried about? A phenomenologist’s account of the agency’s past, present and future

Bruce Alberts, who served as the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005, said most scientists are very worried. “They both have a record of ignoring the best science and making statements and opinions that are not based on the best science and more are based on emotion and the misreading of science.”

Those moves, among others, have generated widespread confusion, anxiety and fear among scientists and doctors on the sprawling NIH campus outside Washington, D.C., and at institutions dependent on the agency’s funding.

The dean of the Brown University School of Public Health says that if this situation lasts for a few more days or weeks, then we can evaluate the potential reforms on their merit. “But, boy, at the moment it’s really disruptive and harmful.”

As President Trump takes the reins of the federal government, one of the agencies in turmoil is the National Institutes of Health — the world’s leading public funder of biomedical research.

Even the NIH’s biggest fans say the agency is far from perfect. A number of changes have been contemplated, such as the grant-review process being more transparent. Many scientists inside and out of the National Institute for Health describe a sense of dread for it.

Daniel Colon-Ramos, a professor of neuroscience at the Yale School of Medicine, said that the period of most uncertainty was when he was a scientist. “Right now in the scientific community the general feeling is one of uncertainty and concern.”

Officials at institutions are worried about what will happen next. Kevin Wilson, vice president at the American Society for Cell Biology, says that he has heard that some extramural institutions are placing restrictions on their spending in the event of another spending freeze.

There is uncertainty and conflicting reports on whether grants are being processed and all payments are being made, so so far, the funding appears to be flowing.

The vast majority of the National Institute of Health’s $48 billion annual budget is spent on funding researchers outside of the agency.

Marjorie Levinstein, another researcher with the union says it’s incredibly frustrating. She studies addiction among other things and says she had to put aside a big step in her research. “It’s harming our ability to make medical leaps and bounds.”

But a hiring freeze at the NIH remains in place, along with a prohibition on starting any new research projects on NIH’s campus, and a pause on recruiting new patients for any clinical studies at the agency.

The communication problem has begun to abate and some meetings and travel have begun again, according to the statement. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the reopening of closed sessions of committees such as advisory boards and scientific review groups.

Science moves at a rapid pace. And requires that all of us in the scientific community work together,” Chatelaine said. “Any gaps that we experience sets us back in terms of being able to conduct the cutting edge research that Americans need to stay healthy.”

“It’s a huge deal, it’s not easy to negotiate on an issue like this,” says Haley, who is a researcher studying basic cellular functions. She is one of the few employees who are willing to speak on the record.

The new administration imposed a blackout on the NIH and other health agencies on most communications with the outside world and banned travel, forcing the cancellation of meetings needed for decisions about what research to fund next in the fights against cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases.

Many employees of the US Agency for International Development are on administrative leave or locked out of their email and work server, including those working on a variety of important public health missions. USAID staffers say this demonstrates that the emergency waiver application process is ineffective and isn’t ensuring that aid workers can continue serving vulnerable populations.

WIRED interviewed eight current and former USAID employees and contractors for this story, several of whom directly work on the agency’s HIV and AIDS programs. They were granted anonymity because of fears of being retaliated against, and because they had not been authorized to speak publicly about the agency. The organization did not reply to the requests for comment.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Service has plowed through several government agencies since President Donald Trump took office last month, proposing sweeping changes to federal infrastructure. But no agency has been gutted as thoroughly as USAID. A cadre of young DOGE agents have been stationed in USAID’s headquarters since last week; after reportedly wresting control of USAID’s secure systems and placing key personnel on administrative leave, the DOGE team began cutting off staff email accounts on a rolling, seemingly random basis, with no guidance or explanation, employees claim. “It’s been absolutely hellish,” says a current USAID employee who lost access to their email on Monday morning.

“We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk said on social media Sunday. Is it possible to go to some great parties? Did that not happen?

How to Communicate with a Customer who Frozen It, Not a Senior Official in a HIV/AIDS Organization: A Case Study

“Your money is being unfrozen but you can’t contact the people who actually froze it,” a senior official at an HIV/AIDS organization told WIRED. “There is a bigger communication problem that is frustrating even the efforts that were put in to free up the work.”