NIH Budget Plan Means Cutbacks For Biomedical Research

Bush asks for expansion in grants and minority training, but his 4.7% projected increase falls short of rising lab costs. WASHINGTON--Despite a budget that Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan says maintains an "unprecedented level of support" for biomedical research, the president's request for 1991 falls short of what's needed to sustain a flourishing biomedical enterprise. President Bush is asking for $7.9 billion next year for the National Institutes of Health, a 4.7% increase over present spending. That request includes such welcome increases as: an increase from 4,633 to 5,095 in the number of new and competing extramural research grants; 225 more postdoctoral trainees, bringing the total to a new high of 12,020; a $48 million increase, to $108 million, in the Human Genome Initiative; and $57 million more to fight AIDS, bringing the Public Health Service total to $1.7 billion. Other increases are meant to encourage more minorities to enter the biomedical pipeline. NIH hopes to add $4.3 million to a $19.3 million budget for its Research Centers in Minority Institutions Program, enough for three new centers. The Minority Access to Research Careers Program, providing faculty and student fellowships to minorities, is scheduled to increase by 25%, to $13.4 million. And the 98 institutions getting Minority Biomedical Research Support grants should have an extra $2.5 million to spend on top of the $29.8 million now going to the program. "It's a real increase," says Kevin E. Moley, assistant secretary in HHS for management and budget, about changes in the 1991 budget. Type Of Research Grants 1989 1990 1991* Continuing (non-AIDS) 14,908 15,188 14,731 Competing (non-AIDS) 5,127 4,394 4,856 Total (non-AIDS) 20,035 19,582 19,587 Continuing (AIDS) 391 495 613 Competing (AIDS) 255 239 239 Total (AIDS) 646 734 852 Total (all grants) 20,681 20,316 20,439 Total support ($billions) 4.034 4.198 4.425 * Proposed The numbers in the administration's request for NIH are significant because Congress no longer enjoys the "wiggle room" it once had. In the past, a Republican president would submit an unreasonably low request for NIH with the full expectation that Congress would increase it. But the persistent federal deficit and the requirements of the Gramm-Rudman Act to shrink it have robbed Congress of its ability to go much beyond what the president proposes without making offsetting cuts here. Unfortunately for scientists, not all the numbers paint such a bright picture. While it is true that in recent decades "unprecedented" support has helped biomedical research to flourish, critics argue that this support has failed to keep pace with increased costs and increased demands. Next year, for example, to squeeze more grants out of the budget, NIH will be making even bigger cuts in grants approved for funding. "Even though we've seen a doubling in the NIH budget in the last 10 years, we're finding ourselves in dire straights," says Lynn Morrison, director for public policy at the American Federation for Clinical Research. "We're reaching crisis proportions in terms of competitive grants funding." "The whole proposal is as significant about what it doesn't say as what it does," adds David Moore, assistant director of governmental relations for the Association of American Medical Colleges. Neither grants nor stipends in 1991 will be as high as they should be, says Moore. Contrary to recommendations made in 1989 that training stipends should be adjusted annually to keep pace with the inflation rate, those stipends have held steady at 1989 levels. Critics are quick to point out that Moley's "real" increase fails to keep up with the biomedical research and development price index, an inflation rate calculated by the Department of Commerce that takes into consideration only expenditures important to biomedical research. That figure for 1991 is expected to be 5.8%, according to James Schuttinga, an NIH economist. The higher rate is due, at least in part, to higher academic salaries. "By that measure, the ad-ministration's proposal falls short of keeping up with inflation," says Moore. The president's request is less than half the 9.8% increase needed to achieve what NIH calls its "current services budget," a total of $8.3 billion. The increase exceeds the biomedical research price index because it assumes that NIH will fund the full amount requested by extramural researchers. In reality, grants are rarely fully funded. The good news for investigators is that the number of new and competing grants will again top 5,000. That figure had declined from 6,200 in 1988 to 5,300 in 1989 and 4,600 in 1990, a slide that has caused many prospective scientists to think twice about a career in biomedical research. Next year that figure is expected to increase to 5,091. Overall, the Bush budget proposes spending $4.4 billion on 20,439 research grants. (Most of the funding NIH awards each year goes to researchers on continuing multiyear grants.) The overall total number of grants will increase by 123. But those grants will be slashed by an average of 14% as part of a process that NIH euphemistically calls "downward negotiations." In 1988 and 1989, grantees lost about 11% off the top of their request; in 1990, administrators predict the average grantee will lose 12.5%. Last year Katherine Bick, NIH deputy director for extramural research, said that cuts larger than 10% threaten the integrity of what the investigator has proposed and what the study section has approved. "The consequence of that is that science gets slowed down," says Moore. "You're not going to be able to do everything you initially planned." Cuts in the Biomedical Research Program will further raise the ire of scientists, who depend on that program's formula grants to tide them over when they are between grants. The program provides funds for shared instrumentation or pilot projects; it was slashed from $44 million to $17 million. NIH plans to account for the change by maintaining the number of awardees - 653 this year and 671 in 1991 - but cutting the average grant size from $68,000 to $26,000. In addition, one third of the funds is earmarked for grants to minorities and the disadvantaged. "They are essentially taking glue money for research programs and turning it into student aid," says Carol Scheman, director of federal relations at the Association of American Universities. The Bush budget for NIH also gives short shrift to the renovation and construction needs of extramural research facilities, says Scheman, even though "what's happening to research facilities is the same thing that's happening to Interstate 95." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has proposed a $150 million program for such renovations, but the House of Representatives seems less receptive to that idea, says Moore. On a more positive note, the president's budget treats NIH scientists fairly well. It contains a 6.8% increase for intramural research, bringing that budget up to $915 million, and an increase for research management and support, for a total of $340 million in 1991. Another $88.6 million is set aside to modernize the clinical center on the Bethesda, Md., main campus and the NIH animal facilities, as well as for construction related to HIV/AIDS projects. The 1991 request also gives the NIH director authority to begin raising money for five to 10 endowed chairs to bring senior scientists into NIH for five-year appointments at salaries above current government ceilings. Such a program is meant to make NIH positions more attractive to university or industrial scientists. The president's budget also creates a $20 million discretionary fund for the director, along with the authority to redirect up to 1% of the NIH budget to emerging biomedical needs. Lobbyists want scientists, indeed everyone, to take a more active interest in making Congress aware of the importance of sustaining - and encouraging - bio- medical research. Fluctuations in support can wreak havoc, says Scheman, causing talented teams to be disbanded and young scientists to lose interest in research. But she warns against calling up one's representative just to complain because Congress thinks it has done well by NIH. As one staffer put it, "The system [NIH] is in fact in the healthiest position it's ever been. The inference that there is a crisis in science because of underfunding is an extraordinarily narrow view." Some political observers predict that the NIH budget will be enlarged to end up with a 5.8% increase. But even that boost won't erase the fact that other scientific disciplines and individual projects are slated to receive much larger increases, says Morrison. That won't change, say science lobbyists, until researchers educate the public about the importance of their work. "What we're trying to do is explain the situation to the American people and develop their concerns," says John Donnelly, vice president, public affairs, of Research! America, a nonprofit coalition of pharmaceutical companies, universities, scientific societies, and voluntary health associations. To do that, his organization has put together TV public service announcements that promise to tug at the public's heartstrings so that they, in turn, can tug at Congress's pursestrings. He urges scientists to spread the word about the need for biomedical research by joining related organizations, becoming active in grass-roots advocacy, and voicing their support in letters to newspapers and calls into radio talk shows. "It's really got to be a collective effort," says Donnelly. "Like so many issues, if there's sufficient numbers of people, then they will be heeded."

NIH Budget Plan Means Cutbacks For Biomedical Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of