NIH grantees may face long waits for restored money

• "My best guess is it will be after all stays and appeals are resolved," said Shalini Goel Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy and an attorney for the researchers and groups who sued the federal government.
• "This tap is not just automatically turned on right now."
• The cancellations focused on projects the administration said were connected to "diversity, equity and inclusion" or "gender ideology" that it alleged were discriminatory and clashed with its agenda.

State of play: HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon said the agency will comply with the order from District Court Judge William Young.

• But he said the agency is exploring legal next steps, including appealing the case and moving to stay the order.
• "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," Nixon said in a statement.

If and when researchers do get to collect payments on the grants, they'll face other hurdles restarting idled projects.

• Some researchers wrote in declarations to the court that they've had to discard biological specimens. Others said that they won't be able to reach meaningful conclusions based on the data they've collected so far, and that study participants won't return because they've lost trust in the process.
• Katie Edwards, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said some of her staff left in pursuit of more stable jobs. Her lab has had to reduce working hours for others.
• Edwards said the team has worked hard to ensure they won't have too many disruptions when they can resume their projects. But if the legal process drags on, problems will be impossible to avoid.
• For example, one of the terminated grants required researchers to follow up with participants every six months.
• "If this draws out [for] months, there probably will be some of our studies that are going to be, quite frankly, really hard to salvage, unless the NIH allows us reduce our sample size," she said.

Between the lines: Heidi Moseson, a senior research scientist with another of the plaintiffs in the case, Ibis Reproductive Health, told Axios that her team is ready to resume work testing new research methods to improve the accuracy of reproductive health data as soon as its legally able — even if it means having to stop again later in the legal process.

• Still, that could affect the team's research outcomes. The research project would also fill a gap in the evidence on the reproductive health needs of transgender and gender-diverse people, she said.
• "Access to gender-affirming health care for trans and gender-diverse folks is exceptionally politicized right now, and any stops and starts in [our survey] will mean that we are collecting data in slightly different political environments, which makes it harder to draw inference," she said.
• "We will launch this research somehow, once we can find funding," Moseson said. But "it's so much harder than it should have been. It's been so harmfully disrupted by this process."

The bottom line: Last week's ruling brought relief and validation for many researchers who see the Trump administration's actions as degrading to patient groups and the scientific process, they told Axios. But they emphasized that the issue is not settled.

• "There are a lot of grants that haven't been covered by this order. There is still a trial ahead, and there is so much more work to do to make sure that the NIH adheres to the letter and the spirit of this ruling," said Noam Ross, a computational researcher who's been tracking NIH grants canceled and frozen this year.