Biomedical researchers are lamenting a sudden new difficulty in winning Research Project Grants from the National Institutes of Health. Hallway conversations outside research labs typically identify three main causes. First, scientists say, money is increasingly being diverted to fund the NIH Roadmap. Second, they claim, more money is being moved from basic research to clinical trials. Finally, they say, too many targeted initiatives are robbing basic scientists of their appropriate share of the NIH budget.
Unfortunately, the problems we’re facing are more fundamental: supply and demand.
Since Congress doubled the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003, the number of researchers applying for grants has grown by nearly 80 percent. The number of applications has nearly doubled. At the same time, the “supply” of NIH research dollars is falling. In inflation-adjusted terms, the NIH budget is down at least 10 percent since 2003.
While the NIH budget doubled, funding for other scientific research agencies didn’t keep pace. Now, nonbiomedical scientists are crying for much-needed increases in the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and other federal research budgets. Unfortunately, this has begun to create tension between different scientific groups.
In my view, internecine warfare is the last thing we need. Universities have made long-term commitments and borrowed heavily to rebuild core research facilities with the expectation that federal research grants will cover a portion of those costs. If grant funding declines in inflation-adjusted terms, the indirect costs of these new facilities will reach excessively high percentage rates that may not be sustainable, even over the short term. If universities cannot balance the bottom line because NIH funding is cut below inflation, nonbiomedical scientists will feel the pain along with their biomedical colleagues.
Scientists in Washington fighting over a shrinking pie will ultimately make bad public policy for all. That’s why a consortium of CEOs, university presidents and senior officials chaired by Intel chairman Craig Barrett and myself have been advancing the concept that the United States’ overall investment in scientific research must do better than keep pace with inflation. In part, this is a practical recognition that our nation’s research establishment has made long-term financial commitments and infrastructure enhancements based on that premise.
Congress and the president have taken some good first steps. They have authorized additional resources for NSF. Recently, they have authorized 6 percent and then an 8 percent annual increase for the NIH.
Of course, authorizations are only a part of the federal budget process. The next step, one that the incoming 110th Congress should adopt, is a commitment to a “funding floor” for annual appropriations, a guarantee to scientists that there will be a consistent base of support for their vital work.
Facebook
Twitter
Sharecare
Blogs
YouTube
RSS
Podcasts
