Balking at Talk About Chronic Disease by Canceling Research

Black Square and Red Square, painting by Kazimir Malevich / WikiArtThe new administration in Washington says it wants to Make America Healthy Again by bringing an intense focus on chronic disease. This is a concept we endorse without reservation. But talk is turning into balk when it comes down to following through on the scientific research essential for reducing the burden of chronic disease.

A fine case in point is the news this week that funding for the landmark Diabetes Prevention Programs has gone up in smoke because of a political squabble with Columbia University.

Nationwide Effects

Expressing dismay with this decision, the Endocrine Society called out the wide effects this capricious cancellation will have:

“The Society is concerned about how the loss of this ongoing research, which is being conducted at 30 institutions in 21 states, will impact tens of millions of people who have diabetes and prediabetes nationwide.”

For three decades, this program has been a treasure trove of insight into prediabetes, its progression, and links to a wide range of diabetes complications such as dementia,  cancer, nerve damage, and diseases of the heart, kidneys, and eyes.

In short, killing this scientific treasure will destroy one of the richest research resources we have for understanding chronic disease in America. The impact will go far beyond Columbia University, where the role was to administer the program for a whole network of institutions.

Brain Drain?

There was a time when America drew the best scientists in the world for medical research and innovation. Now funding cuts are leading private research universities to slash staff and freeze hiring, throwing a wide range of research programs into doubt.

The rest of the world is looking on this spectacle with bewilderment. “Science is alive and thriving here!” was a message to us this week from a colleague planning for the European Congress on Obesity in Spain. Axios reports that some countries are seizing the opportunity to recruit the best scientific talent away from the U.S. It looks like we might make the rest of the world great again at America’s expense.

The administration describes this as a plan for “restoring the ‘Gold Standard’ of scientific research by restoring transparency with how our taxpayer dollars are being spent while cutting waste and bureaucratic overhead.”

We are glad for the administration’s air quotes around “Gold Standard,” because clearly, slash and burn does not pave the way to research excellence.

Click here, here, and here for more on these unfortunate developments.

Black Square and Red Square, painting by Kazimir Malevich / WikiArt

Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.


 

March 21, 2025

2 Responses to “Balking at Talk About Chronic Disease by Canceling Research”

  1. March 21, 2025 at 7:39 am, Joe Gitchell said:

    Not the happiest way to start Friday, but wisdom is seeing the world as it actually is, not how we wish it would be.

    I continually find myself surprised when smart people seem to forget or have never learned an important lesson of persuasion (and let’s hope that the struggle remains a battle fought with words or things will turn south for me quickly!).

    Instinctively, we lead with arguments WE find persuasive. But if your audience is worth persuading, they likely are already familiar with those arguments and you do not have an information-deficit problem. You have a worldview/values/lenses problem.

    See 2015 Vox article referenced here: https://bsky.app/profile/jgitchell.bsky.social/post/3lknmihsthc2q

    And I think this relates bigly to how our university-based biomedical innovators are responding to the “changes” being imposed by the current administration. Does anyone believe that decisionmakers in the White House or HHS haven’t heard these arguments? Does anyone fear that those decisionmakers might feel insulted that the elitist professoriate thinks them so dim that they don’t know or have forgotten?

    I’ve laid out a partial response, under #NIHobbling, that I think would do a better job of being heard and understood by those who see the world differently.

    https://bsky.app/profile/jgitchell.bsky.social/post/3lknm5gcs422q

    Where does it fall down? Does it work for you? Why or why not?

    Joe

  2. March 22, 2025 at 1:10 am, David Brown said:

    @ Joe Gitchell
    Reminder if you seek to persuade: Do NOT use the arguments YOU find most persuasive. If your audience found those persuasive, they would already agree with you.
    I’ve been sending information about arachidonic acid, eicosanoid, and endocannabinoid system research to several hundred scientists annually for more than a decade. I’m not a fan of argument so I concentrate on providing my audience with information they don’t seem to be familiar with. Typically, if I get a response, it amounts to a thank you or “it’s more complicated than that.” To date, only one person has pointed out a mistaken notion on my part. I didn’t realize that eicosanoids and endocannabinoids were different classes of molecules.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3031257/
    https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full_html/2020/01/ocl190046s/ocl190046s.html
    One thing I know for certain. There are no science writers anywhere in the World who specialize in publicizing arachidonic acid research.