Recent research reveals that nearly 60 percent of patents reference studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among these, over half of the patents are connected to grants that are currently deemed at-risk. Many grants feature references from both categories, prompting researchers to seek patents that include citations from at least 25 percent of NIH-funded research. The findings indicated that slightly more than 35 percent of any grants are represented, while about 12 percent pertain specifically to at-risk grants.
The researchers identified several approved drugs linked to at-risk research, particularly those utilized in treating cancer and genetic disorders. These treatments demonstrate a considerable potential to affect public health significantly. However, there are indications that the actual impact might be underestimated. Notably, the data regarding funding priorities is limited, with the latest figures originating from 2007, thus leaving a significant 15-year interval during which research funding trends cannot be thoroughly examined, even as patents continue to emerge.
Furthermore, drugs represent only a fraction of the broader influence of NIH research. The researchers emphasized that their analysis omitted many crucial medical breakthroughs also reliant on NIH funding. This includes, but is not limited to, vaccines, gene and cell therapies, diagnostic technologies, medical devices, and advancements in surgical techniques and patient care practices. These patents hold considerable economic implications, potentially leading to the establishment of new businesses and fostering job creation.
This study not only sheds light on ongoing discussions regarding science funding but also underscores a fundamental truth about scientific advancement. While attention often gravitates toward major breakthroughs and renowned scientists, as will be evident in the upcoming Nobel Prizes, most progress, particularly in the realm of biology, is predicated on a vast intellectual framework built by lesser-known contributions. A sweeping reduction in funding may favor high-profile researchers while jeopardizing the foundational work critical for future discoveries across the scientific landscape.
Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.aeb1564 (About DOIs).
