The Tartan

By Adrien Marenco

In recent weeks, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has cut over 800 research projects and studies, with scientists getting word that their work “no longer effectuates agency priorities.” Although there is a wide variety of canceled grants, there are some points of congregation about what kinds of research have been targeted.  

After searching the database for certain terms, Nature reported that a majority of the targeted groups were studying topics relevant to LGBTQ+ groups and public health. HIV/AIDS research accounted for 28.7 percent of the canceled grants, with transgender health as a close second at 24.3 percent. The final two trends identified were COVID-19 and climate-concerned studies, accounting for 17.1 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.

As transgender people are also impacted by HIV/AIDS research, this could be counted as a “double whammy.” The astonishing proportion of canceled research that concerns transgender people is worrying at best, especially as there is a general lack of reliable research concerning the long-term effects of gender-affirming medical interventions like hormone replacement therapy. As such, further studies concerning the health of transgender patients are vital for the general well-being of American transgender individuals and for the betterment of the trans community as a whole. The recent cuts to the NIH, however, do not seem to support this goal.

Although this does seem relatively devastating to the future of research, these numbers are less apocalyptic than they let on. In total, only 4 percent of the grants for each of these topics were actually canceled, accounting for about $2.3 billion of the NIH’s normal annual budget of $47 billion. The canceled grants originated from dozens of universities and institutions across the U.S., with some places coming up multiple times: Columbia, for instance, accounted for 178 of the 800 grants. However, the implications of this type of unprecedented federal-backed eradication of research funding are complicated, even if the COVID-19 studies had been the only ones canceled. 

Recently, the University of Minnesota published a report that one in seven U.S. working-age adults report “long Covid”, a condition lasting a minimum of three months characterized by low-level, long-term symptoms after recovering from the infectious period of the disease. They found that, among these adults, the most at risk were “socially disadvantaged adults,” including those of lower household income and lesbian, gay, or bisexual status. Ironically, the article calls for “large-scale governmental funding to address long Covid research priorities,” a route that is seemingly juxtaposed with the outlook of our health officials.

Measles Outbreaks

As of April 6, Fox reported that there were 642 confirmed cases of measles in 22 states, with 499 of the instances reported originating from Texas. The BBC stated that this number is greater than double what it was in 2024 and that the outbreak is likely to continue for months at the least. 

In the communities where the disease has resurfaced, anti-vaccine sentiments have seemingly stayed stable. The cases have primarily centered in northwest Texas near Lubbock, in communities that are majority Mennonite. As the virus is highly contagious, the low vaccination rates in these areas only make a bad situation worse. The CDC has reported three deaths so far, two of which have originated from the same community in Texas, where an 8-year-old recently passed.  

Although vaccination guidelines vary by school, the Texas government allows for a convenient way out of the state’s own school vaccination requirements — namely, that an exemption from a vaccine can be acquired “for reasons of conscience.” As such, the estimates for MMR vaccination rates in Texas are worryingly low, with the Department of State Health Services’ estimate for children who have received greater than or equal to one dose of the vaccine coming in at 89.1 percent. The 2-dose rate for teens is even lower, with the estimate decreasing from 84.1 percent to 80.9 percent between 2021 and 2022. 

The Birds

As for a slightly more apocalyptic update, the current strain of bird flu wreaking havoc on the United States’ poultry population might jump to humans. It isn’t a guarantee by far, but concerns about the development of the H5N1 virus have been surging down the scientific community as of late, and for good reason: the possibility of a species-hopping virus is being all but jumpstarted by Robert F Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services.

On March 6, a letter titled “Prepare now for a potential H5N1 pandemic,” was published in Science. Helmed by Jesse L. Goodman, a professor at Georgetown University, the address advocates for industry, government, and regulatory cooperation in the face of a possible future pandemic. “The H5N1 virus has crossed species and adapted to mammalian hosts,” they warn before stating that “urgent action is needed to address pandemic preparedness gaps.” Thankfully, the inherent risk of the virus species-hopping to humans is relatively low — unfortunately, it might not stay that way for long. 

RFK Jr.’s solution to the issue is by “letting it run through the flock,” a bastardized echo of herd immunity theory that is dangerously outdated in the face of modern understandings of disease evolution. Each time a bird gets infected, there is a new chance for the H5N1 virus to mutate — and despite the hopes for a magically immune bird, the lack of genetic variability in modern U.S. poultry leaves little to no hope for such a possibility. The more prevalent the virus becomes, the greater the risk is for species-hopping, especially for farm workers and livestock.

Unfortunately, avian influenza can transfer among birds easily through saliva, nasal secretions, and feces, and with the close quarters of U.S. poultry farms, a single infected bird can contaminate a third of a flock in as little as a day. After an infected bird is located on a farm, poultry farmers have been reimbursed for culling the rest of the flock to slow the spread of the virus. Despite the seeming inhumanity, letting the flu run its course would be far worse, with the H5N1 holding a near 100 percent fatality rate for birds, a trend that is often manifested in an unpleasant manner. The disease, first identified in a Chinese goose in 1996, is estimated to have an approximate 60 percent fatality rate for humans. Though it is still considered very rare and relatively difficult for it to transfer between humans, more homosapien-savvy mutations could spell disaster in upcoming months