People need science and innovation to live. Whether you’re dealing with a temporary virus or a life-threatening cancer, when you seek medical attention you want to know: What are my options?

In the United States, we expect options to be there. We have built an infrastructure and research environment that is a global leader in countless fields. People come here from all over the world to seek medical attention and find a “cure.” Research drives innovation, which touches all aspects of our lives, from technology to health, and how we work, learn, and communicate. Technology has the power to enhance our quality of life, and indeed, to save lives.

You could argue that hope is a byproduct of research. Posing questions and finding answers; looking at the big picture – and always forward. This is the kind of thinking that dares us to be hopeful.

In the medical world, you may hear hope in your oncologists’ words when they tell you that researchers have found new pathways to understand and treat your diseases. Hope is in the headline over a story by a trusted news source unveiling discoveries that will impact the trajectory of your illness, your life. It’s in the long hours and extra effort by laboratory researchers who have made it their life’s work to find answers to the biggest medical questions. Hope lies in the collaboration of scientists where nascent ideas take flight. It’s in the hearts of students who observe: “I would like to do this work someday.”

What is hope worth? It’s true that the virtue cannot be quantified in dollars or on a spreadsheet. It’s not a commodity that can be measured, harvested, or coveted. Yet is it far more valuable than any tangible resource.

Innovation is the long game
New England is home to some of the country’s leading medical centers and academic institutions that conduct research and nurture a pipeline of talent.

Every day our medical community, in translating research from bench to bedside, is saving lives. And it’s not just happening here. The work is being done across the country.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of medical research in the country. In 2023, the agency provided more than $35 billion in grants to more than 2,500 institutions. A report from the advocacy organization United for Medical Research found that every dollar of NIH funding doubles in economic return. In 2023, NIH-funded research generated $2.46 in economic activity for every $1 in funding, resulting in a total of $92.9 billion to the economy, according to the agency’s annual NIH Economic Impact Report’s 2025 update.

Cutting at what cost?
A recent NIH decision to cap “indirect costs” in research grants will cause significant cuts in awards and threaten the work of the research community. Indirect costs represent a vital component to a project. They cover lab work, materials, equipment, lab staffing, and utilities like electricity.

With so many returns on the investment in research – life saving or economic -- it is short-sighted, in my view, to propose funding reductions that will translate into lost jobs and research programs and hobble innovation going forward.

A federal judge recently paused these cuts in response to lawsuits filed by more than 20 states. The funding caps will not take effect, for now, while court action is ongoing.

Still, the uncertainty around research funding is already having a ripple effect in the research community. An example of this, in recent weeks, is the move by UMass Chan Medical School to suspend admissions to several dozen doctoral students at its Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences for the fall. The university cited uncertainties related to biomedical research funding, according to published reports.

Future of innovation
Hobbling the research community is dangerous. Curtailing the work and silencing collaboration will stunt innovation. Discouraging expert researchers and future researchers from continuing their work is unconscionable.

As a survivor of rare and aggressive inflammatory breast cancer, I know first-hand how critical it is to have options. At the time – 24 years ago -- my prognosis was very poor. I received life-saving treatments via technology that had taken years to develop. I understood there were countless patients who had preceded me, many participating in clinical trials. If it weren’t for these patients and dedicated, relentless researchers and innovative doctors, these treatments would not have been available.

Some say it was a miracle that I survived my diagnosis. I can tell you there are a lot of miracles here and across the country. And we want to see more.

As a volunteer in the cancer community for more than two decades, I’ve seen innovation unfold many new options for patients. There is a momentum here and across the country. It’s hard to describe the feeling of optimism as a patient – a momentary pause from the anxiety – when you learn researchers are studying your disease and finding new solutions that may help you. This fuels hope. You start to think: I may survive.

If we undermine our preeminence in medical research and innovation, we will never know what ideas are being lost or what might have been. If we cut people and projects for cost “efficiency,” what we will lose in ideas, collaboration, and discovery is priceless.

I know that hope is healing and that research is a game-changer. For our future, we need to keep the lights on.

Sue Asci, a former reporter and editor with The Reporter, is a freelance writer and a volunteer advocate for research and patient resources in the cancer community.