NIH Research Funding Reality Fails To Keep Pace With Rhetoric

SCIENCE PRIORITY: Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) is sponsoring legislation to double all nondefense research funding in 10 years. Congress has been discussing proposals to double biomedical research funding over five years, double nondefense research funding over 10 years, and raise additional funds to benefit science. So should scientists start celebrating a renaissance in research funding? INFLATION EROSION: AAAS's Al Teich notes that science funding in many categories has declined over the past five years after inflation. Not quite, says Al Teich, director of science and policy programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "You can't spend resolutions." On October 22, Sens. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), known as a fiscal conservative and deficit hawk, and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) introduced a bill asking Congress to double all federal nondefense research funding over 10 years. Last summer, both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted in favor of resolutions that call for doubling the National Institutes of Health's budget over five years. Resolutions gauge opinion in Congress. Yearly appropriation bills gauge fiscal reality. And at this point, the reality for NIH, while not bleak, doesn't set the pace for doubling its budget by 2002. Although the fiscal year expired October 1, at press time Congress had yet to vote on solid budget numbers. Legislators missed the first extended deadline of October 23 to finish the budget and passed a second continuing resolution to fund programs at last year's levels. That resolution was scheduled to expire November 6. Existing numbers, however, tell the story. NIH was funded at $12.75 billion for 1997. For 1998, a Senate-House conference committee recommends a 7.3 percent increase in NIH funding, to $13.6 billion. That figure is closer to the earlier Senate proposal of a 7.5 percent hike, to $13.7 billion, than it is to the House recommendation of a 6 percent increase, to $13.5 billion, or the administration proposal of a 3 percent increase, to $13.1 billion. The $13.6 billion level, which sits on the high side of the proposals and outstrips the 2.6 percent inflation rate, doesn't indicate an immediate funding revolution because the agency would need a 14.5 percent increase every year for five years to reach the goal of $25 billion in 2002. Even Gramm's ambitious proposal, the National Research Investment Act, may not be as revolutionary as it sounds. The senator actually introduced a version in January that would have started doubling funding in 1998, but that bill never reached a vote. The new version basically pushes the goal back another year, to begin in 1999-if Congress and President Clinton approve it. Even if the act becomes law, legislators must still find the money during the yearly appropriations process. Still, Teich notes, the resolutions and proposals show that Congress realizes science funding has been neglected the last several years and that it might be willing to turn around a troubling trend. According to an analysis by AAAS, after adjustments for inflation every federal agency-with the exception of NIH and the National Science Foundation-has less to spend on research in 1997 than it did in 1994. The language in both the Senate and House resolutions seeking to double NIH funding in five years, as well as in Gramm's proposal, acknowledges that analysis. HEALTH SUPPORT: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) sponsored a resolution that received a unanimous Senate vote to double NIH's budget over five years. Teich says NIH may continue to fare better than basic science because of the high-profile backing of Sens. Gramm, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and because it seems most relevant to people. "If any agency is going to double in that period of time, it's going to be NIH. People in this country have a tremendous concern about health. We seem to equate well-being with the ability to cure diseases." PUBLIC OPINION: Surveys show the public supports spending more money on science and health research, says Research!America's Mary Woolley. The public may make the connection between funding and health because of the lobbying efforts of groups like Research!America, an Alexandria, Va.-based advocacy group that promotes biomedical research. Mary Woolley, president of Research!America, says a poll the organization commissioned has helped bring science funding to the attention of policymakers. In the 1997 poll, 61 percent of the 2,000 respondents in five states said that they thought government should invest more money into research and development. "The public is strongly supportive of research," Woolley observes. "They say they'll pay more taxes." Woolley acknowledges that political realities may present an obstacle-especially Congress and President Clinton's goal to balance the budget by 2002. But she says such obstacles can be overcome: "The surging economy makes this moot." Brighter- than-expected deficit reports for 1997 are a case in point, she says. The Congressional Budget Office reports a $23 billion deficit for 1997-well under the $153 billion shortfall projected in spring and the lowest deficit since 1974. As public opinion tilts in favor of science, Congress will have to follow, says Woolley, pointing to Gramm as an example. The Republican senator has been talking about deficit reduction for more than a decade. Woolley says Gramm's sponsorship of a resolution to double all science funding came after the Research!America poll, which included Gramm's state. Another study funded by NSF found that 73 percent of the main science research articles cited by industrial patents in two years were paid for by government or nonprofit agencies. The study, entitled "The Increasing Linkage Between U.S. Technology and Public Science," (conducted by CHI Research, Inc. of Haddon Heights, NJ) noted that the climate for science funding has improved-in part because of the surging economy. However, NSF spokesman Joel Whitter doesn't anticipate science reaping any windfalls from the economy. Still, he says, he's glad Congress is discussing increasing science funding, compared with the rumors of 30 percent cuts to R&D that were circulating around Washington two years ago. Harkin touched on the dichotomy between having the will to boost funding for science and the means to do so during a September 12 speech at the University of Iowa. "In order to increase NIH funds under the budget we're operating under, we have to cut funds from somewhere else. The pie is only so big. So we need to grow that pie, and that means going outside the regular discretionary funding process." Harkin, Specter, and Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) have proposed a number of novel ways to raise money. Specter wants to establish a trust fund based on the proposed tobacco settlement. The settlement would penalize tobacco companies $365.8 billion over 25 years for contributing to national health problems. But it also allows the tobacco companies to claim more than $100 billion as tax deductions. Harkin and Mack have introduced legislation to prevent that deduction. Before the settlement turns into a research windfall, Congress and the president must pass the existing settlement, then agree to the amendment-which the tobacco companies could, in turn, reject. Science Funding Goals Fiscal Year Total Science NIH Portion 1999 $37.4 billion $14.96 billion 2000 $40.8 billion $16.32 billion 2001 $44.2 billion $17.68 billion 2002 $47.6 billion $19.04 billion 2003 $51.0 billion $20.40 billion 2004 $54.4 billion $21.76 billion 2005 $57.8 billion $23.12 billion 2006 $61.2 billion $24.48 billion 2007 $64.6 billion $25.84 billion 2008 $68.0 billion $27.20 billion Source: S.1305-The National Research Investment Act Harkin and Specter also proposed the National Fund for Health Research, which would set aside approximately 1 percent of health insurance premiums for biomedical research. Again, Congress hasn't approved this measure, which almost certainly will face opposition from the health insurance lobby. Terry Lierman, president of Capitol Associates Inc., a Washington lobbying firm, thinks that one or a combination of these mechanisms will eventually fund science-in part because of the public's growing awareness of science's role in the economy. "People are finally paying attention to the needs of research," he maintains. Still, public awareness of research funding needs must grow considerably before increased funding moves from rhetoric to reality, according to Donald Coffey, president of the American Association for Cancer Research and the Catherine Iola and J. Michael Smith Distinguised Professor of Urology at Johns Hopkins University. Coffey, along with heads of more than 100 other research organizations, attended an October Washington rally seeking support for more biomedical research funding. "I don't think it's realistic until you get a lot of people involved," he says. FISCAL REALITY: OSTP's John Gibbons points out that money may not be available to increase science funding owing to the balanced-budget agreement. Before scientists start dreaming of a larger pool of federal grant money, Congress will have to make cuts in other programs, says Jeff Smith, spokesman for John H. Gibbons, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The administration supports increased science funding-in theory- but because of the balanced budget agreement, finding the money for it may be difficult. Smith also says long-term predictions for the economy or for spending tend to be notoriously inaccurate, since the budget works on a yearly basis and the economy fluctuates over time. "The outlook is probably for fairly stable funding for the next five years," he states, predicting that science funding may keep pace with inflation and that NIH may fare a little better than basic science, which has been the case in the past. He also cautions against reading too much into the resolutions calling to double funding for science and NIH: "A sense-of-the-Senate resolution means absolutely nothing."

NIH Research Funding Reality Fails To Keep Pace With Rhetoric

Nov 9, 1997

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of