Funding uncertainty could threaten life-saving research, top UCLA scientist says

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- In just the last few years, we've experienced the fruits of biomedical research.

Gene editing technology that can lead to potential cures for cancer and sickle cell anemia, advances in immunotherapy and the advent of the mRNA vaccines. These are all breakthroughs that came from National Institutes of Health funding.

But late last month, the Trump administration sent out a memo that could change the face of research.

In an exclusive interview, one of UCLA's top scientists spoke out about what the disruptions in funding could mean to you and to science.

The search for truth in science requires collaboration.

"Having just a few ideas being pursued is not enough," said Dr. Otto Yang with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

His work as a renowned immunologist made him a top go-to expert during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the past 25 years, Yang and his colleagues have mapped the inner world of T-cells in our immune system. How they act when challenged by HIV, cancer and transplanted organs. It's foundational research that's contributed to novel therapies.

"All of these innovations that happened in the university setting are what then go down the pipeline and become new treatments," Yang said.

Finding ways to treat disease is Yang's passion, but it requires funding. UCLA provides his lab space, but outside money, mainly from the National Institutes of Health, pays for everything else.

"We fund our own research through competitive grants, mostly from NIH, the government," he said.

His materials and his modest lab staffed with about six people requires a budget of a million dollars annually. Each grant is limited in its run. Yang likens it to his research living paycheck to paycheck.

"To keep your lab running is already a lot of pressure," Yang said.

When he submits a proposal, Yang is competing for part of the NIH's yearly $48 billion in funding. But two weeks ago, a Trump executive order halted the flow of money, leaving his lab in limbo.

"There's really no fat and no storage of money. And if there's a freeze in the spending of your grants it's very disruptive," he said.

This week the NIH announced some funding will return, but Yang wonders how long it will last and how these disruptions could impact patients.

"We wouldn't see any effects immediately, but down the road, yes," said Yang.

In a message from UC President Michael Drake, referring to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget, Drake writes: "The memo is broad and it is not yet possible to know the full extent of the implications."

He explains that the funding changes need clarification, but writes: "We do know that it directs each agency to ensure their grants and loan programs are consistent with President Donald Trump's executive orders."

"Frankly, what's important or what not to research really should be left to the scientists," said Yang.

When it comes to NIH grant approval, a panel of independent scientists decide which proposals should receive funding, not government officials. It's a form of governance that should sound familiar.

"To me it's not a perfect system, but it's very much a democratic system in science," Yang said. "And that should be allowed to run unimpeded."