Increased Funding for NIH: A Biomedical Science Perspective

IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, science policy has become a major focus of attention in our nation’s capital. Numerous major reports and studies examining current science policies have been published, and several other high profile studies are currently under way. Thoughtful reviews of the nation’s research policies were completed by economist Kenneth Brown and political scientist Donald Stokes (1). The National Academy of Sciences released its analysis of the federal science and technology budget (2) and congressional reviews of our science policies are being chaired by Representatives Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and George Nethercutt (R-WA). The spotlight on science in general, and medical research in particular, reflects the priorities of the American public, who believe that science is vital for our nation’s future. Polls conducted by Research!America consistently demonstrate that Americans support additional expenditures for medical research. Almost three-fourths were willing to pay more in taxes to support it, and 90% believe the United States should remain preeminent in this research (3). Health research has been at the center of this heightened interest in science, interest that has included proposals for substantial increases in funding. President Clinton’s FY 1999 Budget released last February contained the largest increase for NIH ever proposed by a president (8.4%). Budget resolutions prepared by the House and Senate Budget Committees also recognized the national priority for investing in science, singling out the importance of increased funding for NIH. The Senate Budget Resolution included an 11% increase for NIH while the House counterpart was reported to have assumed an increase of about 8% for NIH. The FY1999 appro-