To the publisher:
Concerning “The deep cuts of medical research could hinder university budgets(Press article, February 9):
I saw President Trump emit a burst of decrees with an increasing alarm, but none struck as loudly as his reckless decision to reduce the funding of the National Institutes of Health. Although a court temporarily blocked the cuts, I fear that the work of researchers from the NIH and the university will still be in danger. The American people will suffer if research of life and clinical trials are no longer available.
Our family knows the value of this important first -hand work. My husband was one of several clinical trials at NIH to treat his prostate cancer. The team provided various treatments if necessary and they worked. He is now without cancer, and we are leaving the NIH for saving his life.
I fear that in this climate, another family is not as lucky. Do members of the Trump administration realize that their actions affect individual life, not just institutions? More importantly, do they even care?
Marilyn Fenichel
Hamden, Conn.
To the publisher:
I am not a scientific person. I am not very political either. But one thing I know as a survivor of breast cancer is that my life and the life of millions of other cancer survivors have been made possible thanks to biomedical research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
I was able to benefit from decades of research funded by the NIH so that my aggressive cancer did not prevent me from finding my health and living my best life with my husband and my two young children. Putting a freeze on NIH financing could suddenly stop projects that have the potential to cure or relieve the suffering of terrible diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease or SLA
Biomedical research funded by NIH is the desire of the world. This has an impact on each of us calling the United States. The progress of research does not know your political party, your religion or your wealth. Research has the potential to separate all the lines and bind us as human beings, improving life for all of us.
Americans understand team efforts, and that’s important. Our research institutions also need federal support to cover the indirect costs of this vital work which is undertaken for the good of each American. I urge the Trump administration to get rid of the financing of NIH so that America can be up to its potential, for all of us.
FLOM LORRIE
Pittsburgh
To the publisher:
The Trump administration plan to restrict the financing of “indirect costs” – for the maintenance and administration of laboratories and other crucial functions – on the subsidies of NIH will decimate biomedical research in the universities of the country, y included in “red” states and in “non -elite” institutions. Although the system as it has evolved is not ideal, indirect costs provide funds to support the necessary infrastructure.
Contrary to what has been suggested, these funds are not used to promote a Dei program or “liberal” causes. Without sufficient and foreseeable funding from the NIH, biomedical research and American competitiveness will suffer an almost deadly blow. The effects will last generations.
Stuart H. Orkin
Brookline, mass.
The writer is a professor of pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School and investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
To the publisher:
“”How Trump’s medical research cuts would hit colleges and hospitals in each state(The Upshot, Nytimes.com, on February 13) depicts a table striking the widespread and negative effects of the reductions proposed by the Trump funding administration for the National Institutes of Health. But the harmful effects are widely left on the harmful effects on American workforce.
Cutting the NIH funding will not only threaten the most than 410,000 existing jobs It helps support, but also to reduce opportunities for young talented American researchers to access practical training and develop real skills. In addition, the upheaval of the research labor pipeline of our country could considerably weaken America’s position as a world class leader in science and technology.
Voters recognize that scientific research contributes to society; Almost eight in 10 between the parties support taxpayers’ expenses, according to A recent study. They consider vital medicine, a competitive workforce and national security as important yields on these investments. The current administration could also benefit from seeing it.
Daniel Jacobs
Washington
To the publisher:
Concerning “Trump’s layoffs target young talented scientists»(Press article, February 18):
In dismissing the young talented scientists of centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, President Trump and his servants aim for the future of medical research.
Do republicans not have cancer, heart disease or diabetes? Or do they think that these human diseases and others only affect democrats? Do they not care about the future health and well-being of their children and grandchildren?
Judith Tuller
new York
Indignation concerning Trump’s statements on Ukraine
To the publisher:
Concerning “Trump calls “ dictator ” as the quarrel grows”(Front page, February 20):
The Catalog of Donald Trump’s Lies has been well documented in this newspaper, but his latest Statements – President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is a “Dictator without Elections,” and Ukraine is to black for the war with Russia – Are So Outline and Despicable that they Go beyond the simple lie.
We are now living in a world where harm is right, below, it’s up, is there.
Robert Wiener
Paris
To the publisher:
Concerning “A hero in Biden is a villain of his successor»(News analysis, first page, February 20):
President Volodymyr Zelensky, from Ukraine, was not considered a hero only by President Joe Biden. He was also considered a hero by millions of Americans who went to social networks and donated time and money to support Ukraine. T-shirts and fleece sweaters proclaiming support to Ukraine have been seen everywhere. The assault of Russia was seen for what it was: a manifest act to take over an independent country. In other words, for Russia, it was as usual.
President Trump’s attempt to return the scenario – in this case, blame Ukraine for having triggered war and calling Mr. Zelensky a dictator – is a repeated tactic used by Mr. Trump.
On Russia and Ukraine, the president’s inability to be his own man no longer leaves any doubt about the place where his sympathies are or what he considers the most beneficial for his own ambitions. It is not surprising that President Vladimir Putin of Russia seems to be smiling at so many photos of him and President Trump.
Becoming bed companions with Russia and the sale of America and democracy will probably dominate the legacy of President Trump.
Patricia Weller
Emmitsburg, md.
To the publisher:
Given the shocking pivot of President Trump on Russia, I hope that Congress will have integrity to adopt a bipartite resolution respecting in simple terms which has been the American vision of Russia for decades: that it is a Aggressive threat to freedom in the world.
Is it too much to ask the state of congress the simple truth that Russia was the aggressor in Ukraine? Such a decision, without binding the president, would be reassured to our allies.
Paul Eklof
Petaluma, California.