New view from the Hill

When the lame duck session begins Tuesday, Congress will most likely pass a compromise version of the Homeland Security bill. But far less likely is quick action on the long-stalled budgets for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and most other science-related agencies, Hill staffers and observers say. Policy experts at the major US scientific and biomedical organizations will be watching this week's session closely, not only to monitor legislation produced now, but to glean insights into what may lie ahead for the next two years. Measures of interest include: Appropriations bills to complete the doubling – and even begin the process of tripling – NIH's budget, as well as appropriations to begin doubling NSF's budget; passage of legislation creating the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will direct the agenda of hundreds of millions of dollars in new bioterrorism-related research funds, possibly weakening NIH's ability to do so; and a raft of other science policy issues, including competing legislation to outlaw (or encourage) therapeutic cloning and to limit federally-funded research on human embryonic stem cells.For most of these issues, "It's too early to tell what will happen," says Pat White, director of legislative relations for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). "It's a new world now and there's a lot of unfinished work to be done. I'm just concentrating on what this means for the lame duck session."President George W. Bush last week urged quick creation of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during the current session. Over the weekend, Senate leaders expressed optimism that a bill could be passed by Tuesday or Wednesday. Creation of DHS has concerned the biomedical community because the House and Senate versions of the bill differ over who will control NIH's bioterrorism-related research agenda, now and into the future. The House bill allows NIH to set "priorities, goals, objectives, and policies" in collaboration with the DHS secretary. The Senate version, as currently amended, grants DHS "authority to establish general research priorities" but also calls for collaboration between the two agencies. "These are very important differences," says Kevin Wilson, director of public policy for the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). "It determines who controls the agenda. NIH should be allowed to continue to do their work. It's a question of who's driving."While action on DHS is likely to be completed soon, resolution of the budget impasse seems more remote. Only two of 13 appropriations bills for fiscal 2003 (which began October 1) had been completed before the election, leaving funding for major science agencies at last year's levels through continuing resolutions (CR). NIH and other agencies are expecting significant budget increases but these funds remain unavailable. "This is an enormous concern," says Alice Ra'anan, public affairs officer for the American Physiological Society (APS). "Appropriations is the first order of business because if the last installment of NIH funding doesn't go through, important programs won't be started." Wilson of ASCB agrees that long-term continuing resolutions will have a serious impact on NIH. "It would lead to half of what NIH is scheduled to receive under the 2003 budget," he said, "That's not good."However, quick action on appropriations is unlikely, says David Goldston, staff director of the House Committee on Science. "There's still a chance they will do appropriations, but it's a remote chance," he says. "I don't think anyone intends to do a year-long CR. Sometime early next year, if we don't get to it before, we'll get the appropriations done," he adds.Republican control of both Houses of Congress isn't expected to present major problems for the NSF budget doubling effort, says Adrienne Froelich, director of public policy for the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). "Luckily, the NSF doubling issue is bipartisan."But Wilson isn't convinced. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, "I'm afraid that increases in funding for science, for NIH and NSF, will not be the slam-dunk they might have been otherwise. That's not to say that science doesn't have friends in the Republican Party. It's more a concern of interests and agendas," especially with the GOP's expressed desires to cut taxes and limit government spending. In other science policy matters, the House has already passed a bill limiting human nuclear cloning for therapies. But Froelich doesn't believe the new Senate will necessarily follow suit. "There is so much division within the parties, and even within ideological camps, a vote doesn't guarantee a particular outcome."Wilson isn't so sure. "This would make certain scientific work illegal. It's of serious concern. Doing important biomedical research should not be partisan and we hope it's not going to be," he says. "But I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't concerned."

New view from the Hill

Science policy specialists watching for effects of change in control of Congress

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of