It hasn’t generated much in the way of media or political attention, but the latest on the budget for the National Institutes of Health might be worth a look.
Defense and space projects account for most increases in the $135 billion federal research-and-development budget next year, worrying scientists who fear that after years of growth the nation is beginning to skimp on technology that fuels marketplace innovation.
The realignment by Congress of research money toward national defense and human space exploration means many universities, institutions and scientists will have to scramble for new sources of money or cut back current or planned projects.
The National Institutes of Health, the nation’s premier biomedical research agency, saw its budget doubled between 1999 and 2003 but is getting $28.6 billion next year, a slight 0.1 percent drop that marks its first budget cutback since 1970.
Now, it may be tempting to think a modest cut in funding for NIH research, particularly in light of the budgetary debacle Bush and Congress have created, may not be too big a deal, even if it is the first cut to the NIH budget in 36 years. But a knowledgeable Carpetbagger reader explained via email that this a) a bigger cut than it may seem; and b) a serious setback for medical research.
“The problem is that the cost of doing research rises at about 5-6% per year. That makes this effectively a 5% cut in the budget. That means funding 5% fewer applications and making a cut in the support for presently funded projects. For last year’s budget, the “pay line” (cut off for funding) for grants in the NCI (one of the institutes doing the most patient relevant research) was at 10 percent of submitted applications. That means the pay line will likely be less than 10% for the first time ever.
“In comparison, during the Clinton administration the pay lines were at about 25 percent (and in some institutes went to 30% at times). During those years, advances were made in basic cancer research that resulted in the development of targeted cancer therapies such as gleevac, herceptin, targretin and a number of other non-traditional approaches to cancer. I think we can kiss that kind of progress good by at the current funding levels.”
Treasury Secretary John Snow said this week that the administration will “call for sacrifices,” which apparently includes cuts like these. But make no mistake, funding for medical research is being curtailed while tax cuts for millionaires are being expanded.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “sacrifice” is.