New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Halted NIH Clinical Trials List Reveals Slashed Treatments for Cancer, COVID and Minority Health

The National Institutes of Health has canceled funding for at least 383 clinical trials in the last year, affecting some 74,000 participants

A columned building front topped by a triangular pediment reading National Institutes of Health

Mark Wilson/Newsmakers/Getty

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sickle cell disease, sleep disorders and lung cancer: these are just a few of the medical issues that were under investigation in at least 383 clinical trials that have had research grants terminated by the National Institutes of Health since February.

That’s about 1 in 30 of all the clinical trials—tests of medical interventions in human volunteers—funded by the federal agency, which has a $48-billion research budget, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study published Monday.

The full list of 383 shelved clinical trials cited in the JAMA paper, obtained by Scientific American, reveals a wide range. The cuts follow a Trump administration drive to slash costs and cull funding for studies “misaligned” with its priorities; some 74,000 study participants have been affected by the trial cuts, according to the study.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Graphic shows arrays of dots representing the 383 shelved trials, color coded by status, with callouts specifying names of select trials.

“Trials involving cancer, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, mental health conditions, and other major sources of illness were among those affected,” says study co-author Vishal Patel, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“The range of conditions represented in the affected group shows that the impact was not limited to a narrow corner of research. It included areas where many patients face substantial health burdens,” Patel adds.

Graphic shows arrays of dots representing the 383 shelved trials, color coded by primary condition studied, with callouts specifying names of select trials.

In a statement, spokesman Andrew Nixon said the Department of Health and Human Services “strongly” rejects the study’s findings.

“NIH currently funds and oversees more than 42,500 active, recruiting or planned clinical trials across every major disease area,” he said.

“Selective focus on a handful of appropriately paused studies does not change that fact, and it should not be used to cast doubt on the overwhelming majority of trials that meet or exceed the gold standard of clinical research,” he said. “We are committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science—not driven by ideological agendas.”

Graphic shows arrays of dots representing the 383 shelved trials, color coded by primary purpose, with callouts specifying names of select trials.

People volunteer to join clinical trials for many reasons, whether out of a desire to help science or to access a new, promising drug. Everyone who participates in a trial exposes themselves to risk, but canceling the trials can also cause harm, says epidemiologist Bruce Psaty of the University of Washington.

“The intrusion of politics into the NIH with such a profound revision of its funding decisions is not among the traditional ethical reasons for stopping clinical trials early,” says Psaty, after reviewing some of the list.

“This intervention not only broke the original promise to participants of contributing to medical knowledge but it also subjected the participants, investigators, and their institutions to potential unanticipated harms,” he says.

Editor’s Note: This story is in development and may be updated.

Dan Vergano was formerly senior editor, Washington, D.C., at Scientific American. He has previously written for Grid News, BuzzFeed News, National Geographic and USA Today. He is chair of the New Horizons committee for the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and a journalism award judge for both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

More by Dan Vergano

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe