Science Setbacks: 2013

Attracting research funds is never a simple proposition even in the best of years, but in 2013, life scientists dealt with some unique impediments to getting federal grants.

Written byBob Grant
| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share

WIKIMEDIA, PSYCHONAUGHTWell before the first of this year, there were dire warnings that budgets at federal science agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), would be on the chopping block if Democrats and Republicans in Congress could not work through partisan bickering to hammer out a deal to decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. On August 2, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which formed a bipartisan committee tasked with marshalling deficit-reduction legislation through Congress, and mandated 10-year-long, across-the-board cuts—or sequestration—to military and domestic spending if that committee failed.

And it did fail.

The sequester was set to begin on January 1, but was delayed by two months because of another piece of legislation, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. On March 1, sequestration went into effect, and almost immediately US scientists and their collaborators abroad began to feel the pinch. The NIH was forced to slash its 2013 budget by 5 percent, or $1.55 billion. According to its own estimates, the agency eliminated more than 700 new grants, and an average of 4.7 percent was cut from ongoing grant budgets.

The NSF fared a bit better, having to trim its budget by only 2.9 percent, thanks to a temporary spending bill passed later in March.

Life scientists hoping to get new NIH ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Related Topics

Meet the Author

  • From 2017 to 2022, Bob Grant was Editor in Chief of The Scientist, where he started in 2007 as a Staff Writer. Before joining the team, he worked as a reporter at Audubon and earned a master’s degree in science journalism from New York University. In his previous life, he pursued a career in science, getting a bachelor’s degree in wildlife biology from Montana State University and a master’s degree in marine biology from the College of Charleston in South Carolina. Bob edited Reading Frames and other sections of the magazine.

    View Full Profile
Share
July Digest 2025
July 2025, Issue 1

What Causes an Earworm?

Memory-enhancing neural networks may also drive involuntary musical loops in the brain.

View this Issue
Explore synthetic DNA’s many applications in cancer research

Weaving the Fabric of Cancer Research with Synthetic DNA

Twist Bio 
Illustrated plasmids in bright fluorescent colors

Enhancing Elution of Plasmid DNA

cytiva logo
An illustration of green lentiviral particles.

Maximizing Lentivirus Recovery

cytiva logo
Explore new strategies for improving plasmid DNA manufacturing workflows.

Overcoming Obstacles in Plasmid DNA Manufacturing

cytiva logo

Products

sartorius-logo

Introducing the iQue 5 HTS Platform: Empowering Scientists  with Unbeatable Speed and Flexibility for High Throughput Screening by Cytometry

parse_logo

Vanderbilt Selects Parse Biosciences GigaLab to Generate Atlas of Early Neutralizing Antibodies to Measles, Mumps, and Rubella

shiftbioscience

Shift Bioscience proposes improved ranking system for virtual cell models to accelerate gene target discovery

brandtechscientific-logo

BRANDTECH Scientific Launches New Website for VACUU·LAN® Lab Vacuum Systems