It is understandable that the leadership of the Buck Institute for Research in Aging is worried about the budgetary saber-rattling that’s coming out of the White House.

The Novato research hub is working on about 50 federal grants totaling more than $29 million — close to half of its annual budget.

Those grants, issued by the National Institutes of Health, could be hit by the White House’s proposal for a 15% cut in the agency’s indirect costs.

At a time when there is a need to ramp up public investment in finding answers to diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, the White House is paring that commitment.

The Buck Institute was created 1986 as the centerpiece of the three so-called “special projects” launched “to benefit all humankind.”

Today, the institute has 230 employees. About half are medical doctors or have PhDs.

The problem with cutting “indirect costs” is those include technology needed for the work and the expense of complying with NIH requirements. The cuts could not only jeopardize the institute’s work, but the United States’ preeminence in biotechnology, Eric Verdin, the Buck Institute’s CEO, said at a recent congressional hearing. He told Congress members that every $1 invested by NIH yields $2 in economic output.

That doesn’t include the immeasurable benefit in saving lives and relieving families from emotional and financial hardships.

Those are benefits that don’t run along political lines, red or blue state boundaries or economic sectors. They are science-based advancements with an aim to benefit everyone.

Former President Joe Biden’s push for a cure for cancer was aimed at benefits that were not ruled by partisan politics.

The Trump administration needs to take care that the cuts it makes do not undermine that progress, eroding the U.S. scientific stature and dealing a setback to the greater good of hopes for cures.

Trump’s sweeping cuts are being held up by a federal court judge’s order. Even in a legal limbo, they dampen scientific passion and investment.

We hope Congress heard Verdin.

Financial accountability is laudable, but Congress needs to make sure that monetary savings are not greatly outweighed by significant loss.

Research and development takes investment of money, talent and hope.

The Buck Institute’s efforts to create research partnerships with other institutions and private firms is a sign of potential cost-saving benefits and possible enhancements for progress.

Verdin, whose leadership has significantly grown the Buck Institute’s workload, staffing and budget, is right to sound a warning, not only for its ongoing important work, but for science, research and development.

The work that is being done in its hilltop labs is important. The process is expensive and progress can be slow. But our society’s will to work for progress is reflected in our nation’s commitment to find cures and respond to hope.