The United States has for decades been a great benefactor of global science. Last year, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded hundreds of grants to researchers outside the country. In 2022–23, the country supplied about 42% of the overall donor-government assistance for global health and about 16% of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) funding. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it bankrolled a fair share of the global public vaccine effort.
As the current US administration seeks drastic cuts to research funding at home and abroad, the dangers of depending so much on one nation are becoming clear. My own projects are among those at risk.
I am based in Lisbon, where, since 2020, I have been working on preclinical and clinical studies of several cancer therapies in collaboration with US and UK pharmaceutical companies and investigators. Now that our US partners (which were bringing the greatest share) are struggling to secure funds, all these projects are under threat.
A fresh approach is needed to prevent further shocks — changes in governance, wars, natural disasters — from undermining essential global research and education.
Turmoil at US science academy as Trump cuts force layoffs
For starters, more countries must provide more of the funding. Wealthier nations should increase their share of contributions to WHO initiatives, the success of which they stand to benefit from, such as those on pandemic preparedness. Programmes such as Horizon Europe should allocate resources to multilateral initiatives. Its ‘Cancer Mission’, which involves collaboration with Canada, is an encouraging example. By enabling various research projects on cancer, the programme aims to improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030. Future initiatives should include a greater diversity of stakeholders.
Lower-income nations, such as Nigeria and South Africa, could be persuaded to contribute more to initiatives such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, if they were given influence over how the money is spent. (In October 2024, the United States provided about 36% of the pledges and roughly 33% of the funds allocated to the Global Fund.) In fact, a permanent global research-funding initiative could provide emergency short-term funds to keep collaborations that are disrupted by geopolitical events running.
In general, those providing the most funds have the greatest influence on priorities and agendas. Decision-making and management that shapes research must instead also be shared more equitably between nations, and research should be evaluated in ways that are not so dependent on one nation.
The Global Research Council already coordinates transnational funding and policy among dozens of national science-funding agencies, although, as a voluntary organization, it cannot impose standards. Lessons can also be learnt from the European Research Council’s (ERC’s) multilingual grant-review panels, piloted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, reviewers from multiple countries can join meetings remotely. And there is collaboration between a decentralized ethics committee and the ethics committees of individual countries, ensuring that appraisals align with national laws and regulations.
All this must be underpinned by more-resilient shared databases and research-management platforms.
