That work underpins later breakthroughs: new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments typically trace their origins to federally funded discoveries made years or decades earlier. A slowdown in awards today can therefore translate into a thinner pipeline of medical advances years from now.

How firm are the numbers?

Readers should treat the finding with some care. The data describe the pace of awards through the administration's second year, and funding dynamics can shift: Congress appropriates the NIH's budget, courts and policy changes can intervene, and agencies sometimes catch up on backlogged awards after administrative delays.

The Times analysis also reflects a snapshot in time. It does not, by itself, prove that the deceleration will continue, or that every scientific field is affected equally. Historically, funding slowdowns have hit some disciplines — and some institutions — harder than others.

Still, a second consecutive year of slower funding is a meaningful signal. Sustained deceleration compounds: a grant not awarded this year means a project not started, a trainee not hired, and data not collected.

What could come next?

Scientists and policy watchers will be looking at several indicators in the months ahead:

• Whether Congress's next appropriations bills restore or further constrain NIH budgets.
• Whether the pace of new awards recovers, holds steady, or keeps sliding.
• How universities respond — through hiring freezes, program closures, or increased reliance on philanthropy and industry partnerships.

For now, the headline for the research community is straightforward: the flow of federal dollars into American biomedical laboratories has slowed again, and no one in the field yet knows where the floor is.