With Congress now considering the largest federal investment ever proposed for the National Institutes of Health, there is a noticeable discrepancy in the financial commitment to public health and science in general.
The proposed federal fiscal 2002 budget would grant the National Institutes of Health $23.1 billion to support 34,000 research projectsthe largest number in its history. The proposed budget hike represents an increase of $2.75 billion, or 13.5% more than this year. It would affirm a 5-year commitment to double the NIHs fiscal 1998 budget by the year 2003.
But meanwhile, other U.S. Department of Health and Human Services agencies conducting public health-related research would receive considerably less. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions proposed budget of $3.9 billion is actually $164 million less than this years allocation. In addition, a proposed $150 million is earmarked to modernize decades-old infectious disease laboratories and other facilities.
"Obviously, we would like to see funding for CDC growing at a pace equal to that of NIH," said Charles Stokes, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Atlanta-based CDC Foundation. "It is vitally important that Congress recognize the unique preventive health problems that CDC addresses and fund those as well."
Moreover, non-HHS science agencies also do not fare as well. For example, the National Science Foundation, which primarily funds investigator-initiated research in math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and other basic sciences as well as behavioral and social science projects, would receive $4.4 billion, an increase of only 1.3% over this year.
Multidisciplinary Efforts
"Research involving how to curtail disease, extend life, and improve the quality of life resonates, but there is little appreciation among the public for how seemingly unrelated disciplines contribute to these efforts," said Sam Rankin, Ph.D., chairman of the Coalition for National Science Funding, a group comprising about 100 scientific societies and research organizations now lobbying for a doubling of the National Science Foundations budget.
"Over the years the federal government has not developed a consistent long-range plan for funding important areas of science," said Rankin, who is also associate executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Mathematical Society.
According to Kevin Marvel, Ph.D., associate executive officer for policy programs of the Washington, D.C.-based American Astronomical Society, a "real revolution" in the biological and health sciences has captured media interest and generated increased funding support from both lawmakers and the lay public. But at the same time, many of the basic science contributions that drove biomedical discoveries have received less public attention.
|
Still, while there is broad support for better funding across scientific disciplines, some researchers said that steep, uneven budget increases are sometimes justified by exceptionally promising new discoveries or changing national research priorities.
Cyclic Underfunding
"Im concerned that were not seeing growth in all the fields of science; not just in biology but in physics, chemistry, and so on. But I dont know that looking at percentage changes in federal funding over time and seeing decreases in one area and increases in another is the measure we want to use as an indicator of maldistribution," said Howard Garrison, Ph.D., director of public affairs for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Md.
According to Garrison, the NIH budget tends to be doubled in 10-year cycles as new discoveries accumulate and public interest gains momentum. Opportunities now created by the Human Genome Project have created a "uniquely high level of public support" after almost a decade of biomedical underfunding.
"At some periods of time there are certain disciplines that should be better funded. We dont need the same growth for biology as for other fields that are not being transformed the way biology is today," Garrison added.
But at the same time, a pattern of underfunding also makes it difficult now to exploit the new opportunities created by advances in genetics, molecular biology, and other biomedical fields.
Extraordinary Opportunities
"Primarily as a result of the Human Genome Project we are presented with extraordinary opportunities right now to translate basic science into meaningful opportunities for cancer etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Additional funding can accelerate this translational activity," said Thomas A. Sellers, Ph.D., associate director for population science at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Rochester, Minn.
|
"Competition in general and the peer review process in particular does improve the quality of science, but one could argue that if the NIH had so much money that it could fund every single application it receives, would the return on the investment really be maximized?" Sellers asked.
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |