Michigan State University

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the NIH from issuing a cap on indirect cost payments for grantees after finding that the challengers are likely to show the cuts conflict with the law. Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts granted a nationwide preliminary injunction after hearing arguments last month in three separate lawsuits brought by 22 states, several universities and organizations representing schools and hospitals. Kelley had previously issued a temporary restraining order, which prevented the cuts from taking effect while she considered the details of the case. The federal government can appeal the preliminary injunction while the cases proceed in district court. It’s unclear whether it plans to do so at this time. The lawsuits challenge an NIH plan to place a 15% cap on reimbursements for indirect costs, which include costs for infrastructure, administrative support and more. Brian Lea, who represented HHS and NIH in a hearing on Feb. 21, argued that funding for indirect cost reimbursements “is not being pocketed,” but rather reallocated to the direct funding of research. The government has previously called the planned cuts “reasoned and rational” in court documents, and insisted that the action “ran afoul of no statute.” However, in a 76-page order on Wednesday, Kelley said the court is “unconvinced the 15% ICR is unrelated to saving.” She referenced a tweet made by the NIH stating the limit would “save more than $4B a year effective immediately.” The states and research institutions continue to argue that the limits would be devastating to their work. “If you can’t support the infrastructure that supports research, you can’t conduct the research,” Jeff MacKeigan, a senior advisor in Michigan State University’s Office of Research and Innovation, told Endpoints News. “They’re really not indirect costs. They’re essential costs.” Michigan State said in a declaration in support of plaintiffs that the NIH’s action could affect the construction of a $330 million research building being built in partnership with the academic medical center Henry Ford Health. The building, slated for completion in 2027, would house 80 research teams supporting work in cancer, cardiovascular disease and neuroscience. While MacKeigan said the project is currently on track, “any dramatic change at the NIH would have the opportunity to affect that institute.” Dozens of other universities filed similar declarations arguing that the cuts could stall clinical trials, halt new construction or necessitate layoffs. Some universities have said the action has already impacted planning for research. “Certainly it’s affecting the community, just on the uncertainty of what’s going to happen next,” MacKeigan said.

The Senate hearing for Trump’s NIH nominee Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya immediately hit several controversial health and science topics in the first hour of the session. Bhattacharya was pushed on whether he sees a link between vaccines and autism (“I don’t generally believe there is a link”); what he would do about planned NIH grant cuts (he said he’d look at them); how he’ll pursue HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s “MAHA” mission; and his own goals for the massive research institute. Read below and refresh for live updates. . . . . . Bhattacharya says he has no ‘intention’ to cut NIH staff (11:03 AM): When asked by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) about whether he supports NIH staff cuts or grant freezes, Bhattacharya responded: “I was not involved in those decisions.” He later added that “the personnel decisions are hard to talk about unless I’m actually confirmed and I have more data.” When asked if he supports further cuts to NIH funding or staff, Bhattacharya said: “I don’t have any intention to cut anyone at the NIH.” ”I’m going to assess it day one,” he said. “I’m going to understand what resources the whole NIH needs.” — Nicole DeFeudis . . . . . Bhattacharya says he’ll look at cuts to NIH overhead costs (10:53 AM): Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Patty Murray (D-WA) both raised concerns regarding the planned 15% cap for reimbursements that would cover facilities, IT, support, maintenance and other similar activities for NIH grantees. While courts have stopped the cuts from taking effect, Bhattacharya didn’t contradict the Trump administration’s cuts or say he would reverse course. “I want to make sure that the money goes to the research,” he said. But he also said that he would “commit to following the law,” and told Collins he would “make sure that your concerns are addressed.” — Zachary Brennan . . . . . Bhattacharya leans into ‘MAHA’ (10:43 AM): He’s sticking to the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” message, repeatedly using Kennedy’s catchphrase and bringing up the rise of chronic disease. We haven’t been keeping count, but there’s a lot of “MAHA” talk. — Drew Armstrong . . . . . NIH nominee ‘fully’ supports measles vaccination (10:37 AM): Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) opened Wednesday’s questions by pushing Bhattacharya on whether he thinks there’s a link between vaccines and autism, as Texas faces an outbreak of measles that’s already killed one child. In a sharp contrast to Trump’s HHS pick Kennedy, Bhattacharya said he “fully supports” measles vaccinations and does not believe there’s a link between autism and vaccines. “I don’t generally believe there is a link,” Bhattacharya said. “But what I have seen is there’s tremendous distrust in science coming out of the pandemic.” Cassidy pushed him on why more data was needed, given the strong evidence that there’s no link between vaccines and autism — and questioned whether he would ever be able to convince hard skeptics. “People still think Elvis is alive,” Cassidy said. “The more we pretend like this is an issue, the more children we’ll have die from vaccine-preventable diseases.” Bhattacharya called for more study, telling Cassidy it was worth the use of resources if it helps hesitant people get vaccinated. “I’m convinced we have good data on MMR and autism, but if other people don’t agree with me and don’t vaccinate their children, the one lever I have is to give them good data.” Bhattacharya added that he thinks “the most important health problems we have to deal with are diabetes, childhood obesity.” — Zachary Brennan . . . . . Bhattacharya’s five goals (10:30 AM): The nominee laid out a five-step plan for leading the NIH in his opening testimony: . . . . . Sanders calls for Musk hearing (10:12 AM): Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said in his opening remarks that he wants an NIH director “who is prepared to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry.” But addressing Bhattacharya, he said: “President Trump will not be giving you that authority.” Sanders said “the real person in charge of all these federal agencies” is Elon Musk, who he says is at the helm of the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency. The senator said that DOGE has moved to cut “some 1,200 employees at the NIH,” or about 6% of the agency’s staff. “In my view, the real gentleman we should be having up there, and again, no disrespect to you sir, is Mr. Musk,” Sanders said to Bhattacharya. — Nicole DeFeudis . . . . . Five questions ahead of Bhattacharya’s hearing (9:30 AM): Bhattacharya is one of Trump’s first nominees to go before the Senate since the latest round of cuts have hit the government’s healthcare agencies. That includes job reductions to cuts to NIH grants and how the institutes reimburse universities’ research costs. Other actions by the Trump administration, like the dismantling of any agencies’ embrace of diversity, equity and inclusion, have also concerned scientists who say good research should be apolitical. Supporters of the administration’s clamp down on NIH spending say it’s a necessary step to limit waste and abuse in a multi-billion dollar agency that has strayed far from its mission. Here are five topics which could headline Bhattacharya’s hearing (and who’s likely to push them): 1) Bipartisan: How does he feel about the NIH’s 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursements, which a federal court is considering arguments on? 2) Republicans (well, a few of them): What does he think about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, and did the NIH properly oversee grants that trickled down to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China? 3) Bipartisan: How has NIH-funded Alzheimer’s research evolved and has it been overrun by efforts to validate the amyloid beta hypothesis? 4) Bipartisan: Will the NIH limit its research into infectious diseases and vaccines under his tenure? 5) Democrats: Will he undermine research produced by NIH scientists or NIH-sponsored studies if they disagree with viewpoints from others in the Trump administration? — Max Bayer . . . . . Will any GOP senators protest the NIH nominee? (8:45 AM): So far, every one of Trump’s cabinet picks has been confirmed. It seemed for a moment that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead HHS was in peril, due to his refusal to retract prior comments on vaccines and autism. But Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chair of the Senate HELP committee who emerged as a key swing vote, ultimately backed Kennedy. Bhattacharya enters Wednesday’s hearing with less scrutiny, but also less political cachet than Kennedy. To date, there’s been no indication he’ll have trouble being confirmed. Cassidy has already suggested he’ll support him, posting photos of the two of them on X and writing, “excellent conversation with Dr. Jay.” “He has a vision to restore faith in medical research for the American people, protect and improve the institution, and better distribute the benefits,” Cassidy said. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who sit on the HELP committee, have yet to signal how they’re leaning. Both senators were also on the fence about Kennedy but ultimately voted for him. — Max Bayer . . . . . NIH payment cuts update (8 AM): A federal judge is considering whether to continue blocking the NIH’s planned cap on indirect cost reimbursements. District Judge Angel Kelley heard arguments on Feb. 21 over a request for a preliminary injunction against the agency, and said then that she would come to a decision as soon as possible. Kelley has so far temporarily halted the NIH’s 15% cap in cases brought by universities, organizations, and 22 states. The challengers, in advance of the Feb. 21 hearing, pointed to concrete examples of harm that they would face if it’s allowed to stand. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston would need to terminate its leases for at least some laboratory buildings “immediately.” Michigan State University and Henry Ford Health would “‘likely’ pause or abandon” joint construction of a $330 million research facility in Detroit. And the University of Florida would need to reduce its critical research staffing by about 45 people, according to a court filing. If Kelley grants a preliminary injunction, the government would be able to appeal it. Even if the cap stays blocked, it sends a signal of how the NIH may prioritize research going forward. Read more from Nicole DeFeudis here and here . — Alexis Kramer

DUBLIN--( BUSINESS WIRE )--The "Aseptic Processing of Pharmaceutical and Biotech Products Course" training has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering. This comprehensive course covers fundamental principles, advanced techniques, and regulatory insights necessary for success in aseptic processing. Explore the critical practices and regulatory requirements essential for maintaining sterility and ensuring product quality in pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturing. To adhere to this demand and raise the benchmark of aseptic manufacturing, we have curated a 2-day long virtual course for esteemed professionals like you. Thus, if you are associated with any department of biological and pharmaceutical manufacturing, this course will upskill your knowledge about every step. This course equips you with the knowledge to evaluate the risks and failures in the unit. Moreover, you will be able to identify the repetitive penalties being imposed on the organization due to disappointing manufacturing practices. By the end of this seminar, your products will be ready to pass sterility tests and FDA audits without any hiccups. Course Overview While current GMPs are detailed enough to meet FDA guidelines, many manufacturing units suffer production delays, product losses, and health risks. What is the point of working with high-end facilities and setups when you are still facing common issues? To tackle these, World Compliance Seminar has curated a course to guide you about handling manufacturing facilities effectively. The core benefits of the aseptic processing course include: Managing the complexity of working with highly potent ingredients and executing fill-finish effectively Identifying and overcoming issues with single-use system Exploring the latest technologies available in aseptic filling Best practices to eliminate contamination risk through barrier technology Deeper insights from regulatory panels across the leading countries in the world Understanding the role of robotics in aseptic processing Examining strong trends in small-scale and ready-to-use products Who Should Attend: Aseptic sterile technique training will benefit plenty of individuals such as: Manufacturing professionals: Get the right knowledge of basic principles and develop skills to control procedure setting Project Manager: Understand critical factors required to maintain compliance Quality Control Professionals: Decrease the inspections failures, cautionary letters, and agreement rulings Reformulation and Formulation Developer: Determine how to develop media fill simulations and work on the worst-case scenarios Process Chemistry Specialists: Learn the best repetition techniques for decisive media fill sizes Apart from these professionals, the course is also useful for analytical chemists, in-house regulatory compliance officials, scale-up and technology transfer professionals, and validation experts. Key Topics Covered: Aseptic Processing - Introduction The Disinfected Quantity Form Conservation and control of serious surroundings Expansion of procedures for process, standardization, Preventive Maintenance, CAPA, etc. Exercise of workers to include gowning Certification and assessment of variations Adulteration Sources in Sterile Manufacturing Subdivision Content Controls Cross Pollution Hazards Cleaning Process and Agents for Sterile Production Developing Media Fill Requirements in An Aseptic Environment Form FDA 483s Equipment set up Sterilization process Media fills Smoke studies and their emphasis in Aseptic Production (ISO Class 5 facilities) Endotoxin sources Speakers: Barry A. Friedman, Ph.D Consultant Cambrex Bio Sciences Dr. Friedman possesses over 30 years of industrial managerial experience in various aspects of biopharmaceuticals and medical devices to include regulatory compliance, expert witness testimony, GLP/GMP, quality control, auditing, sterility assurance, microbiological/analytical validations and fermentation technology. Prior to becoming an independent consultant, Dr. Friedman was associated with Cambrex Bio Sciences, a contract manufacturer of GMP bulk biopharmaceuticals located in Baltimore, Maryland. As the Director of Quality Control, he managed a multi-shift Department of thirty one individuals involved in client management, the receipt and testing of raw materials, environmental monitoring and microbiology, analytical chemistry and QC compliance for the production of Phase 1, 2, 3 and commercial products manufactured from bacteria, yeast and mammalian cells. In this capacity, Dr Friedman enjoyed many client and regulatory interactions, both domestic and international. Prior to 2000, Dr. Friedman was the Laboratory Director for Chesapeake Biological Laboratories, a contract Aseptic Fill n' Finish manufacturer located in Baltimore, Maryland. In addition to the professional history listed above, other associations have included W.R. Grace, Sigma Chemical Co., Sherwood Medical, Becton Dickinson, American Cyanamid and Union Carbide. Dr. Friedman received his B.S. degree in Microbiology from Ohio State University, his M.S. from Michigan State University in Microbial Genetics, and his PhD from Ohio State University in Microbiology. For more information about this training visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/h4uyyq About ResearchAndMarkets.com ResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.