Mary Brunkow, one of the Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine in 2025, has issued a strong appeal for sustained U.S. federal support for scientific research, as the Trump administration proposes significant budget cuts to key agencies. Brunkow and her co-laureates Fred Ramsdell and Shimon Sakaguchi were awarded the prize for their work on immuno-regulatory T cells, discoveries essential to understanding autoimmune disease and immune tolerance. At a press event, she underscored that much of the research at her institute the “Institute for Systems Biology” in Seattle is supported by federal funding.
“Federal funding has been incredibly important for promoting and supporting science,” she said. “Obviously, any loss to that hurts.”
Her comments come at a time of mounting regulatory and budget pressure. The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts to agencies such as NIH, threatening the backbone of U.S. basic science. Critics warn these reductions risk hollowing out long-term, high-risk research that industry may not fund. Supporters of Brunkow’s stance point to broader signals of concern – the Royal Swedish Academy, which awards many Nobel prizes, has cautioned that academic freedom is under threat in the U.S. amid shifts in research priorities and political oversight.
Why This Matters?
Why This Matters?Scientific breakthroughs seldom emerge overnight. They rely on years, even decades of incremental progress, long-term funding, and stable infrastructure. When federal grants are cut, laboratories may close, experiments stall, and talent may leave academia or migrate abroad.
Brunkow’s warning is echoed by institutions across the U.S. and globally, which are already responding to budget uncertainty with hiring freezes, grant cancellations, and scaling back programs.
Some argue that trimming “wasteful” spending or prioritizing applied research is sensible. But Brunkow warns of a slippery slope that without support for basic discovery science, the next generation of cures may never materialize. Moreover, losing ground in science funding has knock-on effects, diminished global leadership, fewer partnerships, and risk of brain drain.
What’s Next?
Advocacy & Awareness: Scientists, institutions, and the public must push back to preserve research budgets.
Diversified Funding: Encouraging public-private partnerships and philanthropic support can provide supplementary support.
Policy Safeguards: Laws or binding agreements could protect fundamental research funding from abrupt political shifts.
Transparency and Accountability: Prioritizing merit-based peer review and protecting academic independence can bolster trust.
Brunkow’s call is timely and urgent. At a moment when the U.S. risks scaling back its commitment to foundational science, her voice reminds us that research funding isn’t just budget line, it’s a strategic investment in the future of health, innovation, and knowledge.