Why We Need the National Institutes of Health

Why We Need the National Institutes of Health

By Melissa Bates, PhD, FAPS

I became a physiologist because I fell in love with learning how organisms respond to stress, and I wanted to make discoveries that would help current and future generations of patients. My work has focused on populations whose immediate survival and outcomes have recently improved due to advancements in medical care. Illness and treatment can indelibly change physiological responses. Understanding how these changes affect normal development and aging is essential for predicting future health care needs of these populations.

In 2019, my work became personal when I was diagnosed with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor. I had a large portion of my stomach removed, along with several masses from my colon. I had inherited a cancer-driving mutation, a condition called Lynch syndrome, which puts me at very high risk of gastrointestinal and reproductive tumors at an unusually young age. Not only did my daily life change dramatically as a result of my surgery, but my relationship to these physiological questions became less abstract. The need to translate discoveries felt more personal.

I was grateful my genetic mutation was identified and that there are treatments in development, thanks to work supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Federally supported resources such as The Cancer Genome Atlas allow us to quantify disease prevalence and outcomes better because they centralize geographically diverse, large datasets that would be difficult or impossible to establish at individual centers. When I encountered a patient with a newly described mutation a few years later, their best treatment option was a clinical trial at the NIH because they could accrue enough patients to conduct a meaningful trial. 

For many conditions, including mine, NIH is a vital catalyst for innovation. Rare diseases often lack immediate economic appeal for private companies, delaying investment until risks are minimized. NIH funding plays a critical role in de-risking these investments. A 2023 JAMA Health Forum study found that between 2010 and 2019, 99.4% of newly approved drugs were developed with NIH support, providing 10.5% of the development cost.

NIH has historically received bipartisan support, particularly from lawmakers with personal ties to medical research. We should all be advocating for continued federal funding for biomedical research. There are also many of us who have a unique opportunity to challenge the narrative that scientists are wasteful with federal funds or are engaged in irrelevant research. Anyone who is both a physiologist and a patient offers valuable insights on the professional and personal effects of these changes. In today’s climate, personal stories may be the critical adjuvant to economic data, and I intend to share mine.

Melissa Bates, PhD, FAPS, is an adjunct associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Iowa and CEO of LSF Medical Solutions.