The US Government’s order to freeze all research funding to South Africa will have an enormous impact, say experts, with Professor Glenda Gray, former head of the SA Medical Research Council (SAMRC), warning that medical research in the country will be destroyed, and others predicting that the remainder of Donald Trump’s reign “will be terrifying”.
South Africa and China were specifically mentioned in a memo that was sent to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) last Tuesday ordering the halting of the funding, reports News24.
Also excluded from American aid are countries that allegedly finance terror or against whom sanctions have been imposed, according to the “confidential letter” published by the journal Nature.
The Trump administration had already cancelled billions of dollars in research grants to universities and research institutions in the US and elsewhere in the past few weeks, with, for instance, New York’s Columbia University losing about $400m due to the institution’s handling of student protests against Israel.
While some support for research on, among other things, the climate challenge, gender issues, and the Covid-19 and mNRA vaccines is being stopped worldwide, based on the letter to the NIH it appeared that all research in South Africa and China was being targeted.
By Thursday afternoon, at least 35 programmes at 11 South African universities had been affected by the withdrawal of the grants worth R1.5bn, said Dr Phethiwe Matutu of Universities SA (USAf).
Matutu said USAf was collecting data from its members on the impact of the crisis to give to the Department of Higher Education & Training.
“The universities cannot plug these holes. We will meet with government about it.”
So far, Wits University has been hit hardest, with 1 771 positions affected.
The $2.5m funding for a project at the Wits Health Consortium, led by Professor Helen Rees and Professor Ian Sanne, has been stopped, while the status of a $3.1m grant for clinical trials in Soweto on, among other things, HIV/Aids prevention, suddenly changed from “approved” to “pending”, according to Gray.
The money was for a project over seven years.
“South Africa’s research capacity is unparalleled on the continent in terms of infrastructure and experts,” said Gray, while Tendani Tsedu, spokersperson for the SAMRC, said that the work done here on HIV/Aids and TB “had improved the management of these diseases worldwide”.
Tsedu said by Thursday, 18 research projects involving the SAMRC had been affected by the funding cuts.
Veterinary science poleaxed
Dr Paul van der Merwe, head of the SA Veterinary Association, said that funding for a research project on Rift Valley fever was stopped after eight years when Trump shut down USAID last month.
Apart from the scientific knowledge produced by project like these, dozens of new scientists are also trained: the Rift Valley fever project, for example, produced 11 doctorates and numerous master’s degrees, he said.
Some of the programmes the US funded in South Africa form part of the One Health approach, where the relationship between animal, human and environmental health is investigated, he told News24.
“If the monitoring of diseases in the field collapses, there is no mechanism to pick it up and get it going again should the danger of a next epidemic come.”
The whole situation "is very chaotic and everyone (in research circles) is extremely uncertain about what will happen next”, Gray said.
Tsedu added: “It’s one of the most devastating and direct attacks on scientific research imaginable. It will take a lot of time, effort and new funding to rebuild. It affects collaboration and trust that has been built up over decades.”
‘Country of concern’
The “confidential” memo addressed to grant management staff of the NIH (and marked ‘not for distribution outside the government’) had instructed officers to hold “all (research) awards to entities located in South Africa”, and listed SA as a “country of concern”.
Several local and international researchers and advocates, with close connections to the NIH, believe the order was from political appointees in the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who are instructing the NIH on what to do, similar to what happened to USAID employees being instructed by the US Department of State, when they had to end HIV grants in February.
The NIH is hosted within the DHHS.
The memo, labelled “draft”, states that it replaces a previous document sent on 13 February and explains which research grants to terminate, writes Mia Malan for Bhekisisa.
The memo said “additional guidance on awards to foreign entities is forthcoming” but “at this time” NIH Institutes and Centres should “hold all awards to entities located in South Africa” or countries considered of “particular concern” by the US state department, or
“state sponsors of terrorism”.
South Africa, along with China, was a “country of concern”.
Some experts estimate that as much as 70% of SA’s medical research, or up to $400m when both direct and sub-grants are considered for the past financial year, is funded through the NIH, which comprises 27 institutes and centres that each focus on a specific research area.
One leading researcher told Bhekisisa: “It is troubling that such a document even exists, whether it is fully implemented or not. It demonstrates an urgent need for the SA Government to work with researchers to find an alternative solution to the situation.”
Grant checking
“Every day, every minute, you’re checking your grant on the NIH website to see what might have happened. It makes it hard for scientists to roll out new study protocols, because there’s a sense of, ‘should we, shouldn’t we?’,” said Linda-Gail Bekker from the Desmond Tutu Foundation at the University of Cape Town.
Last week Bhekisisa asked the media office of the NIH to confirm the latest memo’s veracity, and if so, to explain the timeline for cutting SA’s grants and why SA was listed as a country of concern.
Instead of confirming or denying the memo, the deputy director for public affairs, Amanda Fine, instructed Bhekisisa to submit a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request, which is similar to a Promotion of Access to Information (Paia) request in South Africa.
But when we clicked on the link Fine sent, it referred us to a notice that says: “You are about to access a United States Government computer system. This information is provided for US Government-used authorised only. Unauthorised use of this system may result in disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties.”
Although the termination letters of South African projects say they can appeal the NIH’s decision to end their grants, the notes simultaneously state that “no corrective action (to the terminated programmes) is possible” and the “premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities, and no modification of the project could align the project with agency priorities”.
Cuts worldwide
While only South Africa and China are specifically named in the NIH memo, research grants in Brazil and at least 300 university projects in the US itself have also been ended.
On Friday, a 24-year old programme, the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV Interventions, which worked to prevent HIV in teens and young adults, received a termination letter related to an $18m grant.
And last week, Science magazine reported it had confirmation from the NIH that it would end all Covid-19 research because it “will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago”.
What happens next?
South African universities will face devastating consequences if all NIH grants are cut, said Bekker. “As a result of research grants, universities receive administrative support through indirect costs, and our clinical trial sites build the next generation of HIV and TB researchers…as almost all of our grants include positions for PhD and postdoc students.”
The infrastructure of some of the research sites Bekker runs for HIV research, could, for instance, be used to test the J&J Covid jab.
“It takes decades to build this infrastructure, it’s not something that can be rebuilt overnight,” she added.
At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in March, where much of the latest HIV research is released, internationally recognised epidemiologist and Director of the Duke Global Health Institute, Chris Beyrer, had told Bhekisisa:
“One of the reasons South Africa has done so well with HIV research is because of the extraordinary depth of scientific talent. But because of the cuts… talented people may be worried about going into this field, and the talent and human resource is fundamental.”
He had said: “We’re worried about our international partnerships for collaborative research with countries like South Africa, and also China.”
Moreover, Bekker added, HIV and TB infections, as well as deaths, would increase. “Viruses and bacteria constantly change. That’s why we need to consistently develop new medicines… to stay ahead of the pathogens. But if the funds are lacking, we have less ability to do so.”
Mitchell Warren, executive director of the international health advocacy organisation, Avac, commented that Trump was appearing to single out South Africa.
“Although the issues related to research cuts are a global challenge, South Africa seems to bear the brunt of so much of this new administration’s ire,” he said, warning that the speed at which the administration moves with its cuts, and the abrupt manner in how it does this, will only increase uncertainty.
“If these past eight weeks (since Trump’s inauguration) are anything to go by, the next three years and 10 months (of Trump’s presidential term) will be terrifying.
“I worry that this has only just begun.”
50788772
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Trump formally ends SA’s HIV and TB research grants
US stands to lose from funding cuts for top-notch SA research
Trump’s aid cuts halt crucial SA-led HIV vaccine trials