NIH Budget Tracks Doubling Goal

No one expects the events of Sept. 11-and the subsequent drains on the U.S. Treasury's surplus-to keep Congress from keeping its promise made in 1998 to double the National Institutes of Health budget by 2003. The proposed $22 billion-plus appropriation for Fiscal Year 2002 is close to the ensuing year's expected amount of about $26 billion. Congressional committee changes to President George W. Bush's NIH request prior to Sept. 11 have remained untouched. But the monies that Congress wants to spend on bioterrorism research and other security measures will come from the treasury's surplus, recently projected to drop from $237 billion to $127 billion. "Clearly," says Melissa Merson, communications director for the Congressional Budget Office, "a substantial amount of the surplus is being consumed. It's not unlikely that we will end up with a deficit for 2002." So the question-and some say it's rhetorical-that could be asked is: what will happen after the NIH budget is doubled? Will the increases continue to keep pace with the commitments that the NIH has made to its grant recipients, in the face of a near-certain recession and surplus-less treasury? According to Bill Burton, spokesman for Sen. Tom Harkin, (D-Iowa) chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations subcommittee, right now, Harkin is focused on the 2002 allotment. "Where the 2003 numbers come from, it's too early to tell on that front," says Burton. The 2003 budget requests will be made public in a few months. "The NIH is already very concerned about what happens if suddenly the budget freezes after 2003," says Kei Koizumi, director, R&D budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "The grants ... are multiyear commitments but are paid year by year. It won't leave much room for new grants." Already, says Koizumi, some federal departments are being asked to submit a 2003 budget that is smaller than its 2002 request. "The rumors are they are being asked to cut back much more." Apparently, such a request happened even earlier at the National Science Foundation; its proposed 2002 budget increase is 1.3 percent, a drop from the minimum of 4.9 percent it has requested since 1998. "We went along with the administration's [requests] for new starts on major research projects, on major research equipment, to keep within their desired goals, plus to review our management structure," says NSF spokesman Bill Noxon. The NSF sees this as a temporary setback. Says Koizumi, "It's other science agencies that do need to worry." Nearly all NIH officials contacted either declined to comment about current and future NIH spending or did not respond to queries. Says NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky, "The NIH does not comment on its budget, outside of the congressional hearings, or until the NIH has made its views known." Proposed 2002 NIH Budget The House, in mid-October, passed its version of the NIH measure, allocating $22.87 billion to the 27 centers and institutes. At press time, the Senate vote was pending; its allocation would be a bit more-$23.69 billion. All of the 52 primary research initiatives as listed in the NIH request would receive more money in the 2002 submission than in 2001. The increases appear to be in the 10 percent to 15 percent range. Vaccine development, for example, would receive $607 million, a 15 percent increase over 2001; mental health, $1.6 billion, a 12 percent increase; and AIDS, $2.5 billion, also a 12 percent increase. In May, NIH acting director Ruth L. Kirschstein told the House subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations that in 2002, the NIH "will fund 36,143 research grant awards, the highest annual total ever awarded." At the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), the budget request of $427 million is 11.5 percent higher than those monies received in 2001. The extra funding is slated for, among other things, the institute's Center for Excellence in Genomic Science, which focuses on awarding grants for interdisciplinary research, and finishing up the mouse and rat sequencing. The NHGRI is also expanding its bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries, to grow by up to 15 organisms per year, for at least the next few years. The majority of the institute's research funds, says budget officer Erin Shannon, is tied up in committed projects. Tim Leshan, the genome center's senior policy analyst, says NHGRI is generally pleased with the funding Congress has been providing and is not unduly concerned about future appropriations. "I don't think people are generally worried," he says. "It looks like they are trying to keep the commitment to double the budget in five years. Clearly some will go to bioterrorism. There may be a deficit next year. A lot of that [surplus] may be drying up, but our hope is people will still see the need to invest in biomedical research." Making, and Keeping, Commitments As the NIH budget has increased, so too has the funding awarded for grants. In 1998, the NIH appropriation was $13.6 billion; the research project grant (RPG) figure awarded was $7.6 billion; in 2000, the appropriation was $17.8 billion; the RPG figure was $9.9 billion. Howard H. Garrison, public affairs director for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, says the NIH has been prudent in watching just how much it is committing to long-term grants; the average length is four years. In 1998, 25 percent of the monies dedicated to grants were for the so-called competing grant, or the first year of an extended grant. During the next few years, that percentage rose significantly-up to 29.3 percent in 2000. The projected percentage for 2002 is back to the 25 percent range. "I interpret this information to show responsible management of the research portfolio by NIH," Garrison says. In a study he did a few years ago, Garrison found that FASEB members get 63 percent of their funding from the NIH; the AAAS estimate was similar. The issue of commitments has always been a hot topic at the NIH, Garrison says. In the late 1980s, he recalls, problems arose when the length of the grants was extended. "A lot of people were chastened by that. ... People who've been around have seen this; [it's] been front and center in their thinking." Garrison says that he hopes that no one will be robbing Peter to pay for Paul's research. "The investment for the future should not be decimated, but at the same time, I think that people will be responding to the new crises we face and scientists will be part of that response." Christine Bahls can be contacted at cbahls@the-scientist.com. Supplemental Table Click to view the PDF file: NIH Research Initiatives/Programs of Interest NIH Research Project Grants Awarded

NIH Budget Tracks Doubling Goal

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of