Scientific breakthroughs can come when they’re least expected. Sometimes, they even seem like a mistake.
John Sedivy, PhD, remembers when his lab made the discovery, back in 2008, that ultimately led him to a possible therapy, now in clinical trials, for Alzheimer’s and other age-related diseases. The Brown University biology professor was studying the architecture of the cell nucleus, and how DNA can support myriad life processes despite being packed into that tiny space. He hypothesized that DNA in aging cells was even more compacted, thus causing some of the negative effects of aging.
But, Sedivy says, “we were wrong.” DNA in many parts of the nucleus in fact became more open and accessible. “That finding forced us to think in new directions,” he says. Years of work, in his lab and others, uncovered a promising new approach to understanding, and possibly treating, a range of diseases from Alzheimer’s to ALS to cancer. Sedivy is now investigating a potential connection to pregnancy complications.
None of this—the years of basic research into molecular processes, the inevitable setbacks that accompanied the steady progress, culminating in drug trials now underway, in numerous labs and biotech companies, for a range of neurodegenerative diseases—would have happened without the steady funding made possible by our federal tax dollars. It’s work that is too slow, and too risky, for most for-profit companies—even the biggest pharmaceutical giants—to support.
“Our researchers put in an extraordinary amount of work to receive federal support for their projects, often requiring pilot data to demonstrate the efficacy of their approach. Through the process of acquiring the pilot data—often supported using University funds—and writing the proposals, the researchers are pushing the limits of our understanding,” says Greg Hirth, PhD, Brown’s vice president for research and a professor of Earth, environmental, and planetary sciences. “Without the support from federal funds, such cutting-edge progress would be stunted, which would lead to diminishing returns for tomorrow’s treatments and other advances that help patients.”
The federal government began funding university scientists during World War II, initially to help with the war effort and since then to pursue investigations into an array of scientific topics. Researchers compete, often fiercely, for grants from government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense, which set research priorities, rigorously review the applications, and fund the strongest proposals. Typically, only about 10 percent of proposals are funded.
“Securing these federal funds is a complex process, with strict rules in place to ensure every dollar is meticulously tracked and allocated to research that truly benefits society,” Hirth says. “The system depends on individual responsibility, departmental oversight, and support from a centralized team. Principal investigators monitor expenses closely, while the University’s Sponsored Projects team ensures compliance with policies and accurate financial reporting. Non-compliance can result in the loss of funding and corrective actions following audits.”
In 2023, higher education institutions received $59.6 billion from US government agencies—less than 1 percent of total federal outlays that year. The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world; every dollar it spends returns more than $2.50 to the US economy, in the form of new jobs and the purchase of research-related goods and services.
According to United for Medical Research, the $245 million in grants and contracts that the NIH awarded to Rhode Island in 2024 (to all institutions, including the University of Rhode Island, hospitals, and start-up companies) directly supported 2,052 jobs and $502 million in economic activity in the state. Federally funded research also facilitates the creation of start-ups and the training of the next generation of scientists, who may work in academia or the private sector.
“There are a lot of downstream positives immediately from an NIH grant,” says Sharon Rounds, MD, Brown’s associate dean for translational science. Longer term, “if the result of the research turns into a patent that turns into a drug that is useful in treating a condition, then that means developing a company and more hiring—and ultimately improvement of the health of the residents of the state.”
American scientists, most of them working at universities, have won 304 Nobel Prizes, the most—by a very wide margin—of any nation. US discoveries have yielded the COVID-19 vaccine, the gene editing technology CRISPR, revolutionary cancer therapies, and a cure for hepatitis C. No wonder our university-government partnership has been called “the envy of the world.”
BENCH TO BEDSIDE
One Brown researcher who has taken a breakthrough therapy from a molecular-level discovery through patient application is Wafik El-Deiry, MD, PhD, an American Cancer Society professor who moved his lab to Rhode Island in 2018. El-Deiry discovered a receptor that suppresses cancer and its metastases.
“It takes years to translate discoveries, with much persistence, and in this case, taking the odds, an unexpected impact for patients with brain tumors occurred,” El-Deiry says. Eighteen years after the initial discovery, in August 2025, the FDA granted approval of the drug dordaviprone (sold under the brand name Modeyso), the first-ever treatment specifically for aggressive H3K27M-mutated brain tumors that have few treatment options and limited survival of patients after radiation therapy.
“Without NIH/NCI [National Cancer Institute] support, the discovery and its ultimate translation over years would not have occurred in our lifetime—and there’s more where this came from,” El-Deiry says.
As director of Brown’s Legorreta Cancer Center, El-Deiry has been building a coalition of clinicians and researchers and pursuing designation as an NCI center, meeting the highest standards in comprehensive cancer research and care. Part of the center’s focus is on cancers that occur at an increased rate in Rhode Island, such as bladder, breast, and lung cancers.
A NEW HOME FOR BIOTECH
Rounds is the program director of Advance Rhode Island Clinical and Translational Research, an NIH-funded center that supports investigators at Brown, URI, and affiliated hospitals with funding, career development, and an array of research resources. “Through those three prongs, we are working to enhance the ecosystem for clinical and translational research in the state,” she says.
Since Advance RI-CTR launched in 2016, it has accelerated the discoveries of dozens of researchers toward marketable solutions for patients, with several of them founding start-ups. Most of these homegrown entrepreneurs then had to decamp to Boston or beyond to build their companies. But now they can stay put: The Rhode Island Life Science Hub—an economic development organization launched with $45 million from the state—is opening the state’s first commercial life sciences incubator in Providence in January. Ocean State Labs will occupy 30,000 square feet of laboratory space provided by Brown, an investment worth $13 million over 10 years.
“It costs a lot of money to translate something,” Rounds says—starting with the federal grants that fund the basic scientific research that underpins life-changing and lifesaving therapies and technologies. A loss in US research funding to Rhode Island not only would hurt this nascent biotech industry and the broader economy that depends on that workforce, but patients would miss out on cutting-edge treatments.
“That’s a tragic loss,” Rounds says. “It’s so easy to tear something down, and it’s so hard to build it back up again.”