Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Research Funding Spinal Cord Tbi topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Researchers, advocates urge conference committee to reject House cuts to spinal cord and traumatic brain injury research funding
Summary
Advocates and researchers told the conference committee that proposed House reductions to the spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury research program would halt ongoing clinical work and undermine translation of discoveries into care. The Senate retains larger funding; the House proposed substantial cuts in its spreadsheet.
Advocates, clinicians and research leaders told the Higher Education Conference Committee on May 6 that the House proposal to cut the state’s spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury research appropriation would jeopardize clinical trials, translational projects and patient care.
Rob Woodlick, a spinal cord injury advocate, told the committee the program has supported “groundbreaking treatments for neuropathic pain” and enabled spinal‑cord stimulation work that has restored some function for patients. "We bring in outside funding now quite a bit. But I'm really here to express my strongest opposition to the proposed house cut," Woodlick said, describing the House change as a deep reduction from current funding levels.
Matthew Roderick, executive director of Unite to Fight Paralysis, told members the program fills a gap between laboratory discovery and clinical application. He described the program’s work as increasing the number of people in trials and creating local capacity for translational research.
What the committee heard: Nonpartisan staff flagged the spinal cord and traumatic brain injury grant item in their spreadsheet. The House position shown in the committee document would reduce the appropriation; the spreadsheet lists a House‑only reduction line for the item. Supporters argued state funding leverages federal and private grants, trains students and generates economic return by seeding commercialization.
Stakeholder point of view: Advocates repeatedly framed the line item as seed research that has a direct path to patient outcomes. "People with spinal cord injuries having orgasms for the first time, being able to go to the bathroom without a catheter, standing, reduction of neuropathic pain" — outcomes cited by advocates — are the kinds of clinical changes the program is supporting, Roderick told the committee.
Next steps and context: Committee chairs said budgetary choices will be taken up after the conference committee agrees a target. Stakeholders urged members to preserve the Senate or current funding level so projects and partnerships underway are not interrupted.
