Zebrafish are cool. They’re just one of a handful of animals that can regenerate their brain, spine, and even heart after injury. Unsurprisingly, a lot can be learned from studying how these injured organs manage to grow back properly. We also know many genes involved in regeneration are also present in a variety of cancers. So, on top of figuring out just how these animals know how to grow back what was lost, we might also gain insights into how to better tame tumor growth.

My own research focuses on understanding how zebrafish fins, despite large differences in size and shape, regenerate in a predictable way. More generally, my research falls into a broad area of academic research: studies that help build scientific knowledge without a currently marketable product or service to offer. This means, like with many areas of academic research, our work relies heavily on public science funding, like grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

The lack of clear clinical results or profitable products may lead some to think of basic science research as just a sink for taxpayer money. Instead, it may be more accurate to describe it as an incubator for ideas: one where preliminary studies and discoveries can take hold to eventually evolve into products and technologies used today. For example, the diabetes/weight-loss medicine Ozempic, the result of decades of research stemming from studies on Gila monster venom, was made possible through NIH and Department of Veterans Affairs funding. Many of the cutting-edge technologies mentioned in media today — CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technologies, neural networks and artificial intelligence, mRNA vaccines — were all successful in part thanks to federal grant funding supporting their development. Of the 356 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2019, 354 of them (99.4%) were funded in part by the NIH. Moreover, roughly one-third of all NIH grants produce research articles eventually cited in patents from the private pharmaceutical sector. The overall impact of public science funding on all our lives and livelihoods truly cannot be overstated.

Today, public science research funding is at risk. The proposed 2026 federal budget as it stands calls for a cut of almost $18 billion (~40%) to the NIH, including $2.7 billion (~37%) for the National Cancer Institute, $2.4 billion (~36%) for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and $1.7 billion (~39%) for the National Institute on Aging. Similarly, the NSF has halted all funding indefinitely, including terminating over 1,000 grants worth over $700 million to various researchers and institutions. Dramatic slashing of federal funding for research will not only undermine research currently being performed, but also have severely detrimental long-term impacts on the health of our nation. As a recent study estimated that the economic return of research funding from the NIH is more than two and one-half times the amount contributed, cuts of this size will inevitably have major economic consequences.

I am a proud Wheeling native: the product of an Elm Grove/Steenrod Elementary, Triadelphia Middle School, and Wheeling Park High School education. I will forever be grateful to my teachers, classmates, family, and friends who helped instill a love of math and science, cultivate intellectual curiosity, and push me to pursue my dream of performing and leading cutting-edge scientific research projects. I have been able to realize this dream thanks to the financial support provided through public science funding. Let’s let lawmakers at all levels of government — especially Washington — know that we value the people and products of our country’s investment in basic science. This will be the best way to provide the next generation of scientists with every opportunity to succeed.

Wheeling native Rocky Diegmiller, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Cell Biology at Duke University. He can be contacted at rdiegmiller@gmail.com.