Washington State University has announced a $7.5 million, five-year federal award involving kratom, chronic pain, and sleep. NIH owes taxpayers a specific answer: what unanswered question makes this investment necessary?
Demand a scientific and financial justification
Ask NIH to explain why these experiments merit federal funding, how they build on existing evidence, and what concrete results will justify the cost.
Send NIH a direct question
Send this focused inquiry to NCCIH, the NIH center administering the award. The link opens its official public contact form.
Copy the message below
Personalize the letter if you wish. Include the award number so NIH knows exactly which project you mean.
Open the official NCCIH submission form
Paste your message, provide an email address if you want a reply, and submit it on the NIH website. This page does not send or collect your inquiry.
Keep the response
Save any acknowledgment or substantive response. The Association can publish verified agency answers as they become available.
Alternative: Email NCCIH directly ↗
Ready-to-send message
Subject: NIH Award 1RM1AT013315-01: Explain the $7.5 Million Kratom Research Investment
To the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health:
I request a specific scientific and fiscal justification for NIH award 1RM1AT013315-01 (RM1AT013315), the five-year $7.5 million kratom research program at Washington State University. What will these experiments add to existing science?
Mitragynine is known to undergo metabolic conversion to 7-hydroxymitragynine, a potent opioid receptor agonist. Why is another mouse study a funding priority, and which unanswered question will it resolve that existing animal and human research cannot?
How will the studies address dependence, withdrawal, drug interactions, and the relevance of purified research preparations to commercial kratom products? What prior studies were evaluated to avoid duplicative work?
Please explain the criteria used to select this project, its measurable milestones, and how NIH will determine whether the public received value for this investment.
Taxpayers deserve a specific scientific and fiscal explanation, not another summary of the grant announcement.
Respectfully,
[Your name]
[City, State]
This message is under the NCCIH form's 250-word limit. Submitting an inquiry does not guarantee a detailed individual response.
What NIH proposes to study
WSU's announcement describes research into botanical kratom in relation to chronic pain and sleep, including preclinical work and a planned human sleep study involving chronic low back pain. The researchers plan to use an authenticated, purified preparation. This is research into unanswered questions—not evidence that kratom is an approved or proven treatment.
Primary source: Washington State University, October 26, 2026 ↗
Grant 1RM1AT013315-01
Neuroresilience with Natural Products: a Path to Improving Whole Person Health
NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) · Washington State University · Principal investigator Mary Frances Paine and collaborators. The $7.5 million is the university's announced five-year amount; the HHS award ledger currently lists a $1.5 million 2026 action. An award action is not the same as actual spending.
Three experiments, three questions
The federal abstract describes a chronic-pain mouse model, a healthy-adult pharmacokinetic study, and a controlled sleep study in people with chronic low back pain. Read the official abstract ↗
Where is the added scientific value?
Why fund another mouse model without explaining what it can establish beyond existing animal and human evidence of kratom’s opioid activity?
Mitragynine can be metabolized to 7-hydroxymitragynine, a potent opioid receptor agonist. How does the study account for this conversion, and what remains unknown?
Why prioritize pain and sleep outcomes without clearly explaining how dependence, withdrawal, and misuse risks will be measured?
How will findings from standardized research preparations apply to the variable botanical powders, extracts, and other products consumers actually buy?
What earlier studies were reviewed to prevent duplication, and what alternative research priorities were considered?
What specific decision will each study enable, and what results would lead NIH to conclude that further funding is unwarranted?
Evidence note: Mitragynine metabolism to 7-hydroxymitragynine is documented, but calling mitragynine solely a prodrug would oversimplify its pharmacology. This campaign questions funding priorities; it does not establish that the award is fraudulent or wasteful. The $7.5 million figure is the announced five-year amount, not money already spent.