Answers to a Congressman's Questions

1. Why am I, as a medical scientist, distressed over a small 5 to 10% cut in our budget for research? For several reasons: a) The funds allocated for extramural research and training to the National Heart Institute (as an example) were less for the year ending June 30, 1969 ($125.4 million) than they were for the year ending June 30, 1963 ($127.4 million), yet during that 6-year period the costs of research increased to an unprecedented degree. It would require at least $1,500,000 in 1969 to buy research that cost $1,000,000 in 1963. Therefore, the "plateau" or "hold-the-line" policy on funding has, in effect, already decreased heart research and training in 1969 to two-thirds of that in 1963. Inflation has changed $125.4 million to $83.6 million. If there was any "give" in the budget ("fat" in Congress' language), it is long gone. b) Failure to increase the budget in the fiscal year 1970 (to restore the "one-time" cut in 1969 and to pay for increased cost of research in the last 2 years) will now result in disruption of medical research teams and financial difficulties for many of our medical schools. c) The constant threat that another branch of the Government (the Bureau of the Budget) can, with little or no notice, reduce research budgets appropriated by you leads to further instability of our research programs and apprehension in our medical schools, where most of the medical research is done.