Research Roundup: Gaps in antibiotic R&D, Broad coronavirus vaccines, Low-cost HPV test

An international research team, led by scientists at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, shared the results of the Phase 1 trial of a novel vaccine designed to protect against typhoid fever and non-typhoidal Salmonella infections, reporting that the vaccine produced a strong immune response and was safe and well-tolerated in a small group of healthy US adults. These encouraging findings pave the way for the next step of evaluating the vaccine in children. A single vaccine that targets Typhoid fever and non-typhoid Salmonella, both leading causes of illness and death in children in Africa, could be a game-changer for pediatric health. The vaccine could also help protect people in the United States and other high-income countries, where some types of Salmonella are common causes of foodborne illness. Following the example of the US military, who often wear uniforms treated with insecticide to repel mosquitoes in malaria-endemic regions, a research team has tested a similar approach to try to protect young children, who face a significant burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. While existing vector control tools, such as insecticide-treated bednets, only protect children while they’re sleeping, a large randomized controlled trial in Uganda tested the efficacy of insecticide-treated baby wraps, used in conjunction with bednets. The trial found that the baby wraps were highly effective at preventing malaria infections. The dramatic scale of the reduction of new infections also suggests that malaria-carrying mosquitoes were biting during the daytime more often than previously thought, which could help guide the development of new vector control tools and approaches. Last week, The Safety of Antimalarials in the FIRst trimEster (SAFIRE) consortium announced that it had enrolled its first patient in Mali, marking the official start of the first-ever Phase 3 adaptive platform trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of antimalarial drugs in the first trimester of pregnancy. The trial is a landmark achievement that could not only help fill the crucial gap of safe and effective options for pregnant women at risk of malaria, but it is also a step toward equity and inclusion for clinical research and drug development in general, which have long excluded pregnant women, fueling the gap in the first place. SAFIRE partners have shared that early formative research in the communities where the trial will take place was a crucial step in ensuring that the design and process were appropriate and acceptable to the communities. The study will continue to progress in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Kenya. 

Over the past century, partnerships between the US government and scientists have led to major breakthroughs in global health research and development (R&D). Consistent US government funding, combined with the nation’s strong research universities and entrepreneurial spirit, has positioned America as a world leader. This investment has paid off in both health and economic gains. However, that foundation has recently weakened, as US government actions have sharply reduced research spending and limited global health research collaborations. These changes risk driving US researchers abroad and eroding the very strengths that made the United States such a scientific powerhouse. The result could be fewer breakthroughs, fewer economic benefits, and a costly brain drain for our nation. How we got here America’s global health research leadership is built on the backbone of decades of government investment by agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). This support built a top-tier talent pool at home and drew innovators from abroad—giving the United States a strong competitive advantage. That advantage is now in jeopardy. Recent policy and budget decisions have led to the termination of thousands of NIH grants, the wind-down of BARDA’s mRNA vaccine work, the closure of USAID and near-total cancellation of its health R&D awards, and the loss of more than 20,000 jobs at the Department of Health and Human Services. More cuts and restructuring are proposed.New federal rules are also disrupting universities—the backbone of US biomedical research. To stay eligible for federal funding, institutions must meet shifting requirements, adding costs and uncertainty. At the same time, new NIH policies have restricted international partnerships and broadly limited "dangerous gain-of-function research,” including studies that leading experts consider to be safe. Research on infectious diseases like tuberculosis has been disrupted as a result.  Funding for training young scientists is also falling. NIH’s main program for supporting early-career researchers saw its grant spending drop from $2.2 billion in 2024 to $1.7 billion in 2025. Without reliable support, many students and junior researchers may take their talents abroad—or abandon their field altogether. The international response In the wake of these changes, other countries are moving quickly to recruit US researchers.  In May, the European Union pledged $567 million over three years to “make Europe a magnet for researchers.” Similarly, the Netherlands launched a new fund to attract top international scientists, and Norway unveiled a £7.2 million program to recruit researchers. The head of Norway’s Research Council pointed to the pressure US researchers are facing on academic freedom as part of its rationale.  Individual universities are also joining in. Aix-Marseille University in France launched its Safe Place for Science program to attract US scientists who may “feel threatened or hindered in their research.” The Free University Brussels created a dedicated point of contact for US researchers interesting in continuing their work in Belgium. The message from abroad is clear: America’s loss can be their gain. So what?As the US retreats, the center of gravity for biomedical research may shift overseas. Data from Nature’s jobs board shows that in the first few months of the current administration, US job-seekers applying abroad rose sharply: 41 percent more to Canada, 32 percent to Europe, 20 percent to China, and 39 percent to other Asian countries compared to the same period in 2024.  Early-career researchers are being hit hardest. At the most innovative and impactful stage of their careers, opportunities are disappearing. Many have been left jobless or unsure if they have a future in their field. The US economy is also at stake. In 2024, NIH-funded research supported more than 400,000 jobs across all 50 states and generated $94.60 billion in economic activity—a return of $2.56 for every dollar spent. Reductions in US spending could shift those economic benefits to other countries. And since no other nation has the resources to fully replace the US’s historic role, we could see fewer medical breakthroughs for the world overall. Without strong and predictable federal research support, the United States risks losing its place as a top engine of global biomedical progress. Young researchers see more uncertainty than opportunity, and other nations are investing heavily to take the lead, accelerating a US brain drain. If US policymakers do not act to restore the foundational factors that rooted American scientific leadership, the future of science may unfold elsewhere—and the next generation of discoveries may not be American-led.