Editor’s note: This essay is part of Mississippi Today Ideas, a platform for thoughtful Mississippians to share fact-based ideas about our state’s past, present and future. You can read more about the section here.
Several years ago, I confronted the possibility that I, like many Mississippians, had been blindsided by cancer.
A routine blood test detected alarmingly high PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels, and after informing me that the odds were about 25% for a positive cancer diagnosis and 60% of that for an intermediate to severe form of the disease, my urologist recommended a biopsy. Those odds represented a 15% probability of a metastatic crisis, and given the low risks associated with prostate biopsies, I opted for the procedure.
After an anxious week of waiting, the pathologist’s report indicated that I had dodged the terrifying reality of cancer—unlike for the roughly 16,000 Mississippians who are diagnosed with cancer each year, with an associated annual death toll of about 6,500.
I am a retired scientist and although my area of expertise involves field biology, my research background helped me evaluate the medical options and procedures related to prostate cancer. I could understand the relevant scientific papers and search for qualities that define good medical research: testable hypotheses, large sample sizes, replicate studies, appropriate statistical analyses and peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. When evaluating my options I could avoid ideologically-based claims like those promising that cod liver oil and other vitamin A supplements are effective for preventing and treating measles.
I also understood that although the initial blood test for PSA antigens, preliminary MRI and biopsy were technological procedures, those procedures were developed through painstaking scientific research—the kinds of research carried out by institutions like the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s (UMMC) Cancer Institute, but now threatened by cuts to federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and National Science Foundation (NSF).
Christopher Norment Credit: Courtesy photoIn other words, the Trump administration is directly harming the kinds of scientific research that could improve the lives of those 16,000 Mississippians who are diagnosed with cancer each year.
In 2023, the UMMC received almost $97 million in research grants, awards and contracts, much of which came from federal funding sources. Cutting NIH funding to the UMMC and other American research institutions threatens the well-being of all Mississippians, regardless of their political affiliation, age, sex, gender, race or ethnicity—or whether their health is threatened by cancer, sickle-cell anemia, heart disease, diabetes, traumatic injury or poor delivery of medical services to underserved populations. Who among us doesn’t know multiple people whose lives have been affected by those diseases or problems? Ironically, it seems that cuts to NIH funding likely will hit “red states” like Mississippi the hardest.
Scientific research is a human endeavor, conducted by fallible human beings, as we all are. And yet the core scientific process, which relies on experimental and observational studies, verifiable data and hypotheses that can be tested by multiple independent observers, is the only truly self-correcting discipline—one that rises above the (occasional) false leads, mistakes and pettiness of its individual practitioners to improve the quality of life for everyone.
The scientific process is why we no longer believe that cancer is caused by an excess of black bile, as did physicians in the Middle Ages. We now have targeted gene therapies that dramatically increase survival rates for many types of cancers. It is why we no longer believe that malaria is transmitted by humid and stale air.
And it is why we embrace the germ theory of disease; use antibiotics to treat a variety of diseases, from syphilis to tuberculosis; and employ vaccines to prevent or diminish the damage caused by polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough: on and on and on. The medical benefits derived from high-quality scientific research is one critical reason that average life expectancy in the United States rose from roughly 40 years in 1860 to almost 79 years in 2020.
Of course, federal researchers and research dollars benefit many other aspects of life in Mississippi besides those related to health care. Proposed cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, which could affect as much as 50% of the workforce at some stations (there are four such stations in Mississippi, supporting research projects on everything from cotton ginning to poultry and insect pest management), would harm the productivity and competitiveness of Mississippi farmers.
Proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—54% in the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 funding bill—will hamper the ability of the EPA to clean up Mississippi’s nine active Superfund sites, which contain toxic chemicals like PCBs and dioxins.
Or take the impacts of proposed cuts to scientific research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Mississippi Gulf Coast is imperiled by rising sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico (almost 2°F between 1970 to 2020), driving increasingly powerful hurricanes, and a sea level rise of up to 10 millimeters/per year, which translates into almost 4 inches of sea level rise per decade, which in turn increases storm-driven flooding. Consequently, along Mississippi’s Gulf Coast homeowner’s insurance is becoming more and more expensive, while the nonrenewal rate by insurance companies is increasing.
Even if one does not “believe” in human-driven climate change, it remains imperative to study sea levels and sea surface temperatures to help protect against the harmful effects of increasingly powerful tropical storms—and the equally damaging effects on homeowner’s insurance rates and availability for Gulf Coast Mississippians.
It also is crucial that we understand the costs of extreme weather events, those causing at least $1 billion dollars, to help insurance companies, policymakers and scientists understand major disasters like the hurricanes that batter the Guld Coast of Mississippi—and yet NOAA will no longer collect these data.
Although scientific research is not primarily a jobs or economic stimulus program, federal research and development funding also contributes in vital ways to overall economic growth, maintaining America’s competitiveness on the world stage and our country’s high standard of living.
Recent analyses suggest that net economic returns for federal research and development dollars are much higher than for other forms of investment such as for physical infrastructure, and may be responsible for as much as 25% of post-World War II productivity and growth—and that contrary to claims by the current administration, public research investments are not less productive than private investments.
I could describe many more examples of benefits provided by federal science funding, but I will end with one perplexing but illustrative story. Last February, President Trump ordered the release of billions of gallons of water from California reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ostensibly to benefit Central Valley farmers and help Los Angeles fight wildfires like those that devastated the area in January. However, there were no scientific justifications for President Trump’s order, as related to hydrology, irrigation or wildfire suppression
Still, one Central Valley farmer stated that although the water release was counterproductive, “I have a conservative mindset. I encourage the trigger-pulling attitude, like: ‘Hey, let’s just get stuff done.”
Maybe there are occasions when a “trigger-pulling attitude” is appropriate. But when the gun is aimed at your own head, the results will be predictable and catastrophic—whether we’re talking ill-considered water releases from California dams or indiscriminate and draconian cuts to federal scientific agencies and research funding, which will harm the citizens of Mississippi in so many ways.
Bio: Christopher Norment holds a PhD in Systematics and Ecology from the University of Kansas and is an emeritus professor of environmental science and ecology at the State University of New York – Brockport. During his career he published over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers and three science-related books of creative nonfiction, and received awards from the State University of New York for teaching and scholarship. He now lives in Jackson.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Scientist: Federal research and research funding matter for all Mississippians )
Also on site :
- EU queen Ursula preached transparency – then did backdoor deals with Big Pharma
- Robert Irwin Goes Red Carpet Official With Lucky Lady: 'It's a Big Step'
- Walmart Is Selling an 'Amazing' $55 Portable Closet for Just $30, and Shoppers Say It's 'Easy to Assemble'