Autism Research Race: Kennedy’s $50 Million Initiative Sparks Wave of Proposals From Top U.S. Universities

As families face rising autism diagnoses, the Biden administration’s controversial data initiative sparks hope, skepticism, and heated debate over science and policy

Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D September 2, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; Stuck in Fiji M.U.D./Blogspot [CC BY SA 2.5]

WASHINGTON D.C. — More than 100 research teams have submitted proposals to apply for a piece of the federal government’s new $50 million initiative designed to further examine the potential causes of autism. A final list of up to 25 grant recipients is expected to be announced by the end of September.

The Autism Data Science Initiative, first announced in May by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is being overseen by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The goal of this project is to construct massive datasets to uncover possible contributors to autism while also evaluating the effectiveness of current treatments.

Based on federal documents regarding the funding process, it is thought that researchers could start producing results within a few.

The autism research initiative comes at the same time Kennedy is overseeing a separate review of vaccine safety, a cause he has been dedicated to for years despite overwhelming research evidence and a consensus within the scientific community that vaccines do not cause autism. Major health organizations, including the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine, have all reported that they have found no credible evidence linking autism to childhood vaccines.

Dozens of large-scale studies, including research involving millions of child participants worldwide, have reached the same conclusion. The original paper that raised the alarm, a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield, was retracted for ethical violations and methodological flaws.

However, Kennedy has continued to argue that vaccines play a causal role in what he calls an “autism epidemic.” He has vowed to implement sweeping health policy changes this autumn, pledging they will “dramatically impact the effects” of autism. To date he has reported no data that supports this claim.

Applications to the NIH program have poured in from nearly 500 institutions, ranging from top-tier universities to advocacy groups and data firms. Among the most prominent applicants are Harvard University, Columbia University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Stanford University, and Johns Hopkins University.

“I know many colleagues who applied for it, because they weren't sure there would be any other funding for autism research anytime soon,” said Dr. Helen Tager-Flusberg, director of Boston University’s Center for Autism Research Excellence. She noted that many applicants are among the “most reputable scientists” in the field.

The urgency is heightened by recent cuts. In August, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with broad reductions to NIH funding, including autism-related projects. Several universities have also faced targeted funding cuts over diversity policies or accusations of antisemitism, further tightening the research pipeline. When funding is cut to the degree it has been researchers tweak their research questions just enough so that their projects meets the application guidelines. Otherwise, there will be no money at all for certain topics of research.

Kennedy has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is facing an “autism epidemic” which is being driven by environmental toxins. He points to the rising prevalence of autism as evidence of this although he cites no statistical finding that link the two variables. Rates of autism have climbed dramatically since 2000, with the CDC estimating 1 in 31 children are now diagnosed.

But most experts caution against describing autism as an epidemic. Research suggests that the increase is largely tied to expanded diagnostic criteria, greater awareness among families and doctors, and improved access to services. Some have cautioned that the results you find depend on the way you ask the research question such that it's possible to influence results such that they come out in a particular direction. Additionally, ignoring other potential variables that influence prevalence rates of a disorder can also make it seem like rates are going up due to variable that haven't yet been determined when it could be a matter of practical variables we are already aware of. There have been times when diagnostic criteria change or testing methodology changes such that children who hadn't been previously diagnoses with a disorder now receiving such a diagnosis and vice versa. Prevalence rates also are determined by which theoretical lens is being used.

Scientists emphasize that autism like most other childhood disorders is a complex developmental condition likely influenced by genetics, physiological factors, prenatal factors, and environmental factors. “The very large increase in autism prevalence that we’ve seen over the past 25 years leads to an obvious question: What is behind this increase?” said Dr. Cindy Lawler, chief of the genes, environment, and health branch at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

Lawler noted that potential areas of focus could be medications, exposure to chemicals, medications, parental health and nutrition, obesity, or birth-related factors such as poor prenatal care, maternal problems during pregnancy and delivery, or prematurity.

Applicants were asked to explain how they would use large datasets to detect patterns in autism risk factors and to evaluate interventions.

One team at Case Western Reserve University proposed analyzing millions of patient health records to search for shared traits among individuals diagnosed with autism. Dr. David Kaelber, professor of pediatrics and population quantitative health sciences, said the use of real-world data is essential for addressing questions about autism, including, controversially, whether vaccines or environmental factors could play a role.

Each funded project will be required to display independent replication to test reliability and reproducibility, according to NIH requirements. One anonymous applicant, who proposed studying prenatal exposures, praised the program’s emphasis on strict data-sharing rules. He added that he “hoped that all HHS-sponsored autism studies would be subject to the same scrutiny.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has promised to issue awards by September, “pending receipt of scientifically meritorious ideas from the research community.”