The fast pace in which the Trump administration has rolled out changes to how government and businesses operate – a disruptive effort that appears to be creating a new world order – has caught the attention of biopharma industry leaders who spoke Tuesday at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization’s CEO and Investor Conference in New York.
The immediate implementation of the U.S. NIH’s guidance to cut indirect costs included in its grants to 15% was quickly halted late Feb. 10 when a federal district judge granted a nationwide temporary restraining order in two separate challenges to the cuts that were to go into effect that day on all existing and new NIH grants.
Amid a strengthening offensive against direct-to-consumer drug ads, two senators flagged a Super Bowl ad promoting compounded drugs as part of the company’s attack on the U.S. weight-loss industry that it said was built to keep Americans “sick and stuck.”
The Biosecure Act may have died with the 118th U.S. Congress, but efforts to stop U.S. government funding of R&D in China are alive and well. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., introduced the Stop Funding our Adversaries Act in the House Feb. 7 to prohibit direct and indirect federal funding of research in China or entities owned by China.
From Feb. 10, the U.S. NIH is to cut the amount of its grants that go to indirect costs, in a move it says will save $4 billion per annum, but which scientists say will hit breakthrough biomedical research. The NIH announced the cut on Friday, Feb. 7, saying there would be a flat rate of 15% for indirect costs, such as running laboratories, buying and maintaining equipment, data processing and storage, across all of its grants. That compares to an average rate historically of between 27% and 28%, the NIH said.
In the early days of the second Trump administration, what will happen to various government science agencies is not yet clear. Given the communications blackout imposed on agencies including the NIH and the CDC, most of what is known comes from anonymous sources and secondhand reports. Executive orders affecting the agencies are also still in the process of being interpreted, as well as subject to multiple legal challenges.
“This current administration is like nothing that we've seen before,” said a managing partner of a global venture capital firm who spoke to BioWorld on the condition of anonymity. “President Trump’s first term was bad,” he said, “but nobody knows what’s coming.” “This is truly nationalism at its worst, because he won on the campaign [largely] to protect American jobs, claiming that Americans have been unfairly treated.” And it's not just China, he said, but India and other countries will also likely be affected.
Carrying out his campaign promises to reform government, President Donald Trump signed 46 executive orders (EOs) between Jan. 20-31 that have been published in the Federal Register. Of those, 26 were signed after noon and between all the inaugural events on Trump’s first day in office. Since then, he’s signed at least eight more orders, and the administration has issued numerous memos, several of which are intended to implement the EOs. Given the quantity, scope and content of the EOs Trump has issued over the past few weeks, it’s no surprise that they’ve generated controversy, a lot of uncertainty and at least a few court challenges.
The European Commission on Feb. 5 cleared Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.’s serplulimab (HLX-02) under the brand name of Hetronifly as a first-line combination therapy with carboplatin and etoposide to treat extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.
The U.K. is continuing to shape up regulation, adding reform of its accelerated drug approval process and its draft guidance on personalized mRNA cancer vaccines to new clinical trial regulations that will come into force early in 2026. The Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway has been relaunched following a review of the industry’s experience of the scheme since its introduction in January 2021, and it will be open for applications from next month.
RSS
