The DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act adds a new Section 409K to the Public Health Service Act directing the NIH Director to run an 'INCLUDE Project' — a research, training, and investigation program focused specifically on Down syndrome and related co-occurring conditions. The statute lists concrete program elements: high-risk/high-reward basic science on trisomy 21, lifespan cohort studies, expansion of clinical trials that are inclusive of or expressly for people with Down syndrome (including pharmacological and therapies to improve activities of daily living), biomarker development, and work on conditions such as Alzheimer’s and autoimmunity.
The law also requires NIH to coordinate work across institutes to avoid duplication, consult stakeholders (including patient advocates) “to the maximum extent feasible,” and send biennial reports to specific House and Senate committees identifying participating institutes, whether research was multi-institute, and any resulting real‑world evidence usable in clinical research and care. The Act does not itself specify funding levels, so implementation will depend on future appropriations and NIH program decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates the 'INCLUDE Project' at NIH to conduct and support targeted Down syndrome research, spanning basic biology, cohort studies, biomarker identification, and expansion of clinical trials that include participants with Down syndrome. It requires intra‑NIH coordination to prioritize non‑duplicative research, stakeholder consultation, and biennial congressional reporting with specified contents.
Who It Affects
Directly affects NIH institutes and centers (their research portfolios and priority-setting processes), researchers in genomics, neurology, immunology, and developmental biology, clinical trial sponsors and sites that recruit participants with Down syndrome, advocacy organizations, clinicians caring for people with Down syndrome, and families seeking evidence-based care.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statutory umbrella that can reorient NIH resources and incentives toward understudied aspects of Down syndrome — from mechanisms of trisomy 21 to comorbid Alzheimer’s and autoimmunity — and explicitly pushes for more inclusive clinical trials and translational biomarkers. For sponsors and clinicians it signals a formal federal priority that could unlock new trials, data standards, and regulatory attention.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes the INCLUDE Project as an NIH‑led program devoted to Down syndrome. Rather than a single grant or center, the statute is written to encompass a programmatic approach: NIH will sponsor and coordinate a portfolio that can include basic, translational, clinical, and cohort research.
The text enumerates research aims—studying trisomy 21’s effects on development and health, running lifespan cohort studies, expanding clinical trial access for people with Down syndrome, and developing biomarkers and interventions that address day‑to‑day functioning.
Operationally, the Director of NIH must coordinate across NIH institutes and centers to ensure activities are aligned and not duplicative. The bill points to the Office of the Director and to NIH’s existing priority‑setting review processes (cross‑referencing section 402(b)(3)) as the mechanisms for that coordination.
The statute also requires NIH to consult relevant stakeholders, naming patient advocates, and to consider stakeholder needs when shaping research priorities and trial designs.Finally, the Act creates an accountability loop: NIH must send biennial reports to designated House and Senate committees that catalog which institutes are involved, whether research was carried out directly by a given institute or across multiple institutes, and identify any real‑world evidence derived from the work that could inform clinical research or medical care. The bill does not, however, appropriate funds or specify authorization levels; implementation will turn on future budget choices and how NIH translates the program elements into funding opportunities, awards, and internal priorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 409K to the Public Health Service Act, naming the NIH program the 'INCLUDE Project' for Down syndrome research.
It directs NIH to fund high‑risk, high‑reward research on trisomy 21, lifespan cohort studies, biomarker identification, and research into co‑occurring conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and autoimmunity.
The statute explicitly requires expanding clinical trials that are inclusive of, or expressly for, participants with Down syndrome, including pharmacological trials and therapies intended to improve activities of daily living.
NIH must coordinate activities across institutes—using the Office of the Director and priority‑setting reviews—to prioritize non‑duplicative research portfolios.
NIH must submit biennial reports to specific House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees that identify participating institutes, whether research was multi‑institute, and any resulting real‑world evidence for clinical use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s name: 'DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act of 2025.' This is purely nominal but sets the legislative framing around the INCLUDE Project and signals the bill’s focus to appropriators and agencies.
Establishes the INCLUDE Project at NIH
Creates statutory authority for the Director of NIH to carry out a program of research, training, and investigation related to Down syndrome under the label 'INCLUDE Project.' The language is programmatic rather than grant‑specific, giving NIH discretion to structure activities across basic, clinical, and translational domains.
Enumerates specific research priorities and trial inclusion
Lists seven program elements: high‑risk/high‑reward trisomy 21 biology; lifespan cohort studies; expansion of clinical trials inclusive of Down syndrome participants (including biomedical, pharmacological, and ADL‑focused therapies); study of structural, functional, behavioral anomalies and stunted growth; biomarker development; research into increased prevalence and comorbidities (e.g., Alzheimer’s, autoimmunity); and research/training to improve quality of life. These bullets function as both a research agenda and a signal to NIH about what types of funding opportunities and collaborations to prioritize.
Requires intra‑NIH coordination and priority reviews
Directs the NIH Director to ensure institutes and centers coordinate Down syndrome activities via the Office of the Director and priority‑setting reviews under existing NIH authorities. Practically, this forces portfolio management choices — institutes may need to reclassify or defer certain projects to avoid overlap, and cross‑institute projects will be encouraged.
Mandates stakeholder input and biennial congressional reporting
Requires NIH to consult, 'to the maximum extent feasible,' with relevant stakeholders including patient advocates when carrying out the program. It also mandates biennial reports to specified House and Senate committees that must catalog participating institutes, whether projects were single‑ or multi‑institute, and identify any real‑world evidence produced that could be used in clinical research or care. These requirements create transparency but use loose standards ('maximum extent feasible') that leave significant discretion to NIH in practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals with Down syndrome and their families — the bill prioritizes research into co‑occurring conditions, biomarkers, and interventions aimed at activities of daily living, which can generate evidence that improves diagnosis, management, and quality of life.
- Researchers in developmental genetics, neurology (including Alzheimer’s research), immunology, and clinical trialists — the statutory agenda signals NIH priorities that can translate into new funding opportunities and cross‑disciplinary collaborations.
- Patient advocacy organizations and community groups — the law requires stakeholder consultation, formalizing their role in priority setting and likely increasing access to federally supported data and trial opportunities for their constituencies.
- Clinical trial sponsors and trial networks — clearer federal emphasis on including people with Down syndrome and creating cohorts across the lifespan can lower barriers to enrollment and support development of indication‑specific trials.
Who Bears the Cost
- NIH institutes and centers — they will absorb coordination and priority‑setting burdens and may need to shift or consolidate program funds to implement a unified Down syndrome portfolio.
- Federal appropriations (taxpayers) — although the bill does not appropriate funds, meaningful program activity will require new or redirected funding in NIH budgets.
- Small researchers and existing disease programs — some research projects could be deprioritized or face new competition as institutes align around the INCLUDE agenda.
- Clinical trial sites and sponsors — designing inclusive trials for participants with Down syndrome can add complexity, specialized assessments, and recruitment costs that sponsors and sites must manage.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill stakes out two legitimate but potentially conflicting priorities: accelerate biomedical discovery (including pharmacological interventions) while ensuring research is inclusive, person‑centered, and addresses quality‑of‑life outcomes; doing both at scale requires funding, careful trial design, and governance choices that the statute directs but does not specify, leaving hard trade‑offs to NIH and appropriators.
Two implementation gaps matter. First, the statute sets program priorities and reporting duties but does not authorize or appropriate specific funding levels; meaningful activity depends on NIH budget choices and future appropriations.
That creates a gap between statutory intent and practical capacity: NIH can plan and coordinate, but large cohort studies, biomarker validation, and expanded clinical trials are resource‑intensive.
Second, the bill pushes two potentially competing aims without resolving how they will be balanced: promote high‑risk basic science on trisomy 21 and rapidly expand inclusive clinical trials. High‑risk research and trials require different timelines, expertise, and evaluation criteria.
The coordination requirement intends to prevent duplication, but it also centralizes portfolio decisions within NIH; how NIH translates the broad program elements into funding announcements, review criteria, and inter‑institute governance will determine whether research is additive or simply rebranded. Additionally, terms like 'real‑world evidence' and 'maximum extent feasible' are undefined, raising questions about data standards, privacy protections, representativeness of cohorts, and how evidence will be validated for clinical use.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.