The detrimental effect of the US government’s move to cut funding for global healthcare programmes is widely known, but research now shows the quantum of the decline in funding.

A paper published by Anbang Du of the University of Southampton, UK, and others shows how medical advancement may be impacted if the US were to, hypothetically, end funding for all academic research. Moreover, the US is home to not only the largest R&D hubs globally but also major funders of research, and leads in scientific publication, intellectual property and clinical trial capacity.

The study shows that the government change in the US in 2024-25 was followed by an estimated 40.6 per cent reduction in central US funding for research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2026. It looked at 1,07,955 funding awards totalling $51.4 billion globally.

The researchers modelled the cancer science ecosystem across a five-layered network, covering 233 countries and territories. The layers include grants, clinical trials, publications, inventions and patents. They found that the inequality between the West and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) was most evident at the monetary end of the chain — namely grants and patents.

“The existing capacity in the research and innovation ecosystem might limit LMICs’ ability to acquire sufficient funding from international funders and commercialise the knowledge,” the report says.

Countries such as the US and China dominate all five layers and are, hence, at the core of the cancer science network, while smaller economies only partake of the paper-related layer and are seen as peripheral.

Low-income countries participate actively in the publication layer, but their presence is significantly diluted when it comes to clinical trials, inventions and patents. The study has also come up with evidence of ‘tokenism’ in paper publication — when it comes to prestigious first- or last-name authorship positions, the involvement of researchers from low-income countries dips sharply, which also impacts their ability to generate research income.

Ultimately, this leads to a ‘brain drain’ — researchers tend to migrate to richer nations that can potentially offer them key roles in funding and capital creation.

The study postulates that the hypothetical removal of the US from the system causes a dramatic 50-plus per cent loss of efficiency.

What is the way out? The researchers suggest that other countries should scale up to make up for the decline in US funding. The largest contributions across the grants-to-inventions lifecycle will have to come from the European Union. They also suggest how other regions such as BRICS, which includes India, should chime in as well.

Published on June 15, 2026