What if NIH had been 40% smaller?
Abstract
Replaying history with less NIH funding shows widespread impacts on drug-linked research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and the global research landscape.
“Thus, the federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and—given America’s scientific leadership—the global research landscape as well (3–10).”
From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Decisions about allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs.
“Through competitive grant programs at agencies such as the NSF and the NIH, decisions about the allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs (3–10).”
From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 10 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Azoulay, P., Clancy, M., Li, D., & Sampat, B. N.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Open Philanthropy Project (US)
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2025-09-25
- Volume
- 389
- Issue
- 6767
- Pages
- 1303-1305
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W4414494532
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Keywords
- NIH funding, research funding cuts, pharmaceutical industry, drug discovery, history of biomedical research
- MeSH terms
- Pharmaceutical Research, Financing, Government, Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Research Support as Topic, United States, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
