The NIH: A Budget Appraisal

Digital Vision President George W. Bush's decision to halt historic increases in the National Institutes of Health budget in fiscal year 2004 raises questions about how much the agency and the researchers it funds should expect to receive in the coming years. With a possible war on the horizon, the economy in a slump, and dreams of future federal surpluses fading, policymakers and scientists suggest that funding other science-related agencies may be a higher priority. Beltway observers also question whether NIH researchers, accustomed to ample funds, should have been better prepared for the inevitable buck in the funding trend. "This has been forecast from day one, five years ago," says Martin Apple, president of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. "The question is what have we done to adapt to it. And if the answer is 'nothing,' then it's partially our problem as well as everybody else's." GOOD FOR THE GANDER President Bush made good on his campaign promise to bring the NIH budget from $13.6 billion in 1998 to $27.3 billion by FY 2003; His FY 2003 proposal alone represents an increase of $3.6 billion, which is 16.1% more than the $23.6 billion appropriated in FY 2002. But the FY 2003 funding remained in limbo in early February as Congress sparred over the total federal expenditure, and Bush unveiled a proposed NIH budget of only $27.9 billion for FY 2004. The small increase of 2% set off alarms in the life science research community. But the FY 2004 numbers may not have the dire effect that researchers once feared. The reason: Nearly half the $3.6 billion increase in FY 2003, $1.4 billion, would be devoted to one-time facilities--extramural biosafety labs and NIH campus improvements--as well as infrastructure costs that will not factor into FY 2004 expenditures. The number of competing NIH grants would actually increase, from 10,165 to 10,509; only 21 of the additional 344 are nonbiodefense grants. Funding for these grants will rise by 5.7 % from $3.6 billion to $3.8 billion. This scenario could change: If Congress does not fund all of the buildings outlined in the FY 2003 budget, NIH may have to take money from the FY 2004 budget to fund the capital expansion, reducing the dollars available for research. Donald C. Poppke, acting associate director for budget at the NIH, emphasizes that agency funding is best viewed and analyzed over several years. "Two percent [is] not good for sure," he acknowledges. "We would like more. But given the way it's arrayed, we can be OK with it," he says. "If we got 2%, 5%, 8% [increases in each of the next] three years, for example, that wouldn't be so bad," adds Poppke. "If it's 2%, 2%, 2%, that could be troublesome." The latter scenario is not out of the question: The appendix of the President's FY 2003 budget projects increases of just 2% to 2.3% each year from FY 2004 through FY 2007. If the percentage increase falls below inflation in successive years, some say, the agency may lose the benefits of the past five years of expansion. SQUANDERING THE INVESTMENT? The Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology is pushing for an increase of 10% in FY 2004; an amount FASEB officials say is sufficient to continue the research momentum created by the large increases.1 Patrick White, director of legislative affairs, says FASEB publicized the reversal in NIH budgeting policy to get the attention of scientists and policymakers. Only a 10% boost would prevent the government from "squandering the investment" made in biomedical research, says FASEB president Steven Teitelbaum. But scientific communities also worry about the relative expenditures in different research disciplines. "The engineering societies have been preaching for a long time that you can't just fund the NIH," says Tom Price, executive director of the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES). "You've got to fund the research to provide the tools and machinery and techniques for the NIH." Indeed, an October 2002 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended significant increases in physical science and engineering funding.2 The president, in turn, agreed to raise the National Science Foundation budget, and the agency is scheduled to receive nearly $5.5 billion in FY 2004, a 9% increase over the FY 2003 budget of $5.03 billion, but less than the $6.4 billion authorized in December 2002. Price and the AAES contend that to maintain the NIH's development, "basic science and engineering need to reach that same growth level." Eugene Russo (erusso@the-scientist.com) is a contributing editor. References 1. T. Agres, "Funding 2004: President's budget request disappoints biology community," The Scientist, Feb. 4, 2003, www.the-scientist.com/news/20030204/04. 2. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, "Assessing R&D expenditure," October 16, 2002.

The NIH: A Budget Appraisal

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of