1. < Message from the Chair

The science led by faculty within the UCLA Department of Medicine (DoM) changes the world, impacts lives, strengthens communities and advances health. As I mentioned last week and in weekly communications to our research faculty and staff, questions around the future of federal research funding puts this essential mission at risk. Today I will update you on the state of NIH funding of research within our department and recap what we know about how reductions in federal funding for scientific research are impacting our work. 

2024 Blue Ridge rankings of NIH Funding to Departments of Medicine

New data on NIH funding to medical schools and departments of medicine across the country were shared late last month by Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, a nonprofit that issues authoritative rankings of funding to individual researchers and academic institutions every year. The results for 2024 are very different from the past few years. The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (DGSOM), which includes every department, is now ranked No. 16, down from No. 11 in 2023. The DoM is ranked No. 11 in 2024 after spending several years as either No. 1 or 2.

This was expected. A major clinical trials grant for HIV/AIDS research which was secured by Judith S. Currier, MD will soon be fully transferred to the University of North Carolina. The transfer has already begun and is reflected in our rankings decline. Additionally, PI’s within DGSOM received many federal grants related to COVID-19, a testament to our institution’s robust clinical and basic research infrastructure. These awards have now declined, in part because the intensity of COVID-19 funding has diminished as the impact of the pandemic has eased. 

We anticipated these changes. Our ascent to the top of the list was primarily a result of the large award granted to Dr. Currier, and we are returning to our baseline. Thus, the strategy to increase our NIH portfolio rests primarily on increasing the number of funded investigators in the DoM, which would put us on a more sustainable trajectory while we continue to compete for extraordinary funding opportunities such as the HIV clinical trials program when these opportunities arise. 

Let me provide additional rationale for pursuing the first strategy of deepening our bench of funded PIs. If we look at the top 11 departments of medicine by Blue Ridge rankings and remove the “outlier” awards — the $100 million-plus “mega-awards” — you can see that the average award per PI is roughly $900,000 to $1 million across all departments. However, relative to our peers, we are the smallest research cohort of this group; we have 115 funded PIs, compared to 247 at UCSF, for example.

There is an important caveat with the Blue Ridge rankings for investigators in that they only capture corresponding PIs. Many of our faculty are co-principal investigators (PIs) in multi-PI awards, and as such the associated funding would not be captured in Blue Ridge. Moreover, many of our faculty lead research sub-contracts that are primarily based in other institutions where the corresponding PI is elsewhere. Thus, our federal grant spending amount exceeds the amount reflected in Blue Ridge by an additional $30M. 

We will therefore continue to focus on increasing the base of funded PIs using a multi-pronged strategy, including recruiting and retaining our physician scientist trainees and mentoring them not only to obtain their career development award (e.g. K grants) but also to make the transition to their first independent grant (K to R transition). We will also continue to recruit physician scientist talent across all divisions within the DoM. 

We believe that this remains an important strategy even in the current funding environment, based on the rationale that we should remain well-positioned when the funding crisis is resolved in the future. As part of the Research Pillar of our strategic plan, we will continue to ensure that we maintain robust infrastructure that will enable us to remain competitive for all kinds of NIH awards. Increasing our research rankings is a marathon and not a sprint, but we are committed to getting there. 

In the meantime, let me thank all our investigators — not only those of you who directly contributed to our NIH rankings, but many more who are competing for and receiving funding from multiple other sources to sustain your impactful research.

Headwinds Ahead

I would be remiss to not discuss the current challenges all U.S. academic medical institutions, including ours, are facing. As you know, there is significant turmoil at the NIH resulting from cuts to federal funding and termination of NIH positions, which are impacting scientific research budgets. As you can see in the charts below, which were taken from the Washington Post, the pace of funding for both new and renewed NIH grants has slowed dramatically compared to last year. Between Jan. 21 and March 24, 2024, the NIH awarded around $1 billion in new grants and competitive grant renewals. It awarded $399.5 million during the same period in 2025, a drop of about 60%. For non-competitive grant renewals, the agency awarded around $4.5 billion over that period in 2024; the figure for 2025 is around $2 billion. 

I know that there are many in the DoM (myself included) who have received awards — some of which were approved for funding — but have not yet received payments. We are gathering information about these awards so that we can make appropriate plans to sustain faculty compensation and attempt to maintain research programs with the expectation that some of this funding will be eventually released.

Below I will give you brief summary of the situation so far; you may look to our earlier blog posts and announcements for more detail.

In late January, the White House issued a memo ordering a temporary freeze on funding for about 2,600 government programs, including many that supported health and science research. That decree was reversed two days later. However, on Feb. 7, the National Institutes of Health announced that costs associated with administrative support, building maintenance, and other expenses not “directly” tied to research projects would be capped at 15% of a grant budget. This funding, known as F&A, supports many critical functions that support our research mission, including support of institutional review boards (IRBs) that must approve and monitor the safety of human subjects enrolled in research trials in addition to other mission-critical functions. As I shared in the Feb. 10 newsletter, this would reduce NIH payments to UCLA by 74% and could significantly impact our ability to carry our out our work effectively; as of April 4 a federal judge has permanently blocked the order, although this seems likely to be appealed by the administration. Thus far we see no evidence that the F&A reduction has gone into effect. However, we cannot be completely sure given the delay in the issuing of new awards. 

The NIH has resumed reviewing some grant applications, though this process is still delayed due to the cancellation of some study sections. At the same time, some grants have not been sent to peer review, because the research may touch on areas that have been specifically targeted as not being eligible for federal grant support. The DoM has been working with each of our divisions to better understand the impact of these executive orders on the future of our work. We also host many NIH funded training grants. Recently, the NIH issued new guidance mandating the removal of diversity sections from training grants, and revision to data tables to comply with new federal mandates (see parent T32 NOFO, for additional details).

Unfortunately, some international projects led by some of our faculty members were impacted by cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Although some of these decisions have been reversed, disruptions persist as funding has not yet been received in those cases, and many local staff at our international sites were already laid off. These projects include programs that provided medicines and healthcare to under-resourced populations around the globe, and we are investigating other means of continuing this important work. 

We have also learned of some grants being terminated among our faculty within the department. I would like to remind all principal investigators that if you receive any communication from a federal sponsoring agency to not complete or sign any certifications, acknowledgements, questionnaires or surveys sent to your attention. Please instead notify department or division leadership and forward these communications to the UCLA OCGA at awards@research.ucla.edu for coordination with legal, employee relations and the UC Office of the President.

It remains to be seen how court challenges to many of these policies will shake out. UCLA’s Office of Contract and Grant Administration (OCGA) has offered guidance for researchers on maintaining compliance with federally-funded research projects; see these slides from OCGA’s March 25 forum for the latest updates.

Meanwhile, the UC system is taking action to limit financial risk and disruption to our research activities. Currently that includes a system-wide hiring freeze and the implementation of cost-saving measures. Each campus has been given flexibility to implement this plan. UCLA has implemented a hiring review process in lieu of a freeze for senate faculty within the DGSOM (in residence, regular series, Clin X). We will provide additional details regarding the departments approach to managing this additional review process very soon. Note however, that recruitment of health sciences clinical track faculty is not subject to this additional faculty review and will continue to proceed as usual. These exemptions to hiring within UCLA Health are in place to avoid negatively impacting clinical care.

The University of California system has also issued new guidance regarding diversity statements in faculty recruitment. The department remains committed to fostering an inclusive, pluralistic clinical and research environment that promotes culturally-concordant care and diverse perspectives from professionals who come from a wide range of backgrounds. Furthermore, we understand that many trainees and faculty who are early or at the midpoint of their careers may be concerned about the ramifications of speaking out against these challenges. That is one of the reasons why, last week, around 1,900 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine signed a letter that urged the American people to appeal to Congress to protect scientific research funding. This letter was written independently of signatories’ home institutions and the National Academies; however, nine of us in the DoM who are also members of NAS or NAM, including myself, were among them. I tell you this to reinforce to you that we believe deeply in the research mission of our institution, that we support you and your work, and that we will never waver in our commitment to your success as innovators and researchers.

Dale

P.S.

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Sam Phiri who is the director of programs for Partners in Hope in Malawi. The visit occurred after they had received notice of cancellation of USAID support. I reiterated our department’s commitment to sustaining our decades-long partnership.

---