Orchids and onions for US funding of $50 million for autism research
What did reporters for The Washington Post learn for individuals interested in the research projects?
Writing in the Washington Post for 9 October 2025, Allyson Chiu and Ariana Eunjung Cha published a story about the September 2025 funding of autism research by the National Institutes of Health (see 8 October 2025 story). They reported that some experts see the research projects as potentially beneficial but others have reservations.
Last month, the National Institutes of Health awarded 13 projects a combined $50 million, aiming to use novel approaches to study the causes and prevalence of autism, as well as therapies, services and care. And while President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have long expressed concerns about the rise in autism cases in the United States — often invoking debunked claims — medical experts say the new grants support rigorous science that could provide critical insights and help further the field.
“This is a very strong set of principal investigators and a very strong set of projects that contrast so strikingly to the level of the science that we heard” from Trump last month, said Helen Tager-Flusberg, head of the Coalition of Autism Scientists and director of Boston University’s Center for Autism Research Excellence. “I am pleased that despite the current tenor of the administration, the NIH was able to pull a beautiful set of scientifically rigorous and interesting research programs out of the proverbial top hat.”
In addition to that positive view of the projected research, Ms. Chiu and Ms. Cha also reported that some people are more hesitant about endorsing it.
Still, some members of the autistic community say they are viewing the initiative with caution. Trump and Kennedy have suggested that the condition is linked to vaccines, which has been disproved numerous times, and more recently have warned pregnant women to avoid taking Tylenol based on a largely unproven connection to autism.
“Even if the research gets done and it’s good research, I’m not really sure that the conclusions that are going to be touted by the administration are actually going to be what the research says,” said Miriam Dixon, 27, a PhD student. “It doesn’t really matter if the public perceives something other than what the science says.”
As noted in the first quoted paragraph, some of the reservations arise because of the track record among and credentials of some of those affiliated with the efforts by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The authors note that concern as well as the reaction from some in the autism community that dispute the wisdom of the implied goal of some projects to eliminate autism.
See Ms. Chiu’s and Ms. Cha’s full report, “What NIH’s $50 million for autism research could mean for the future: Many experts say the NIH projects represent a body of rigorous science that could provide critical insights and help further the field of autism research,” for a more complete understanding of these cross currents in the reactions to the funding program.