GOVERNMENT & POLICY
HUMBLE ABODE The Natcher Building, which houses NIGMS, sits on the Bethesda, Md., campus that serves as home to NIH's 27 institutes and centers.
BELT TIGHTENING In wake of five-year doubling, N I H budget growth hits dramatic slowdown S U S A N R. M O R R I S S E Y , C & E N
T
WASHINGTON
HE SKIES OVER THE NATIONAL
Institutes of Health are clouding up. The days of double-digit budget growth appear to be over, and the agency is seeing in creases that are below historical levels for the world's leading supporter of biomed ical research and training. Earlier this summer, the House passed an N I H spending bill of $27.66 billion for fiscal 2004—on target with the Bush Ad ministration request. This represents a 2.5% increase from the fiscal 2003 ap propriation of $26.98 billion. The Senate was more generous, with the Appropria tions Committee approving a 3.7% in crease in 2004. While the final figure is still to be decided, this would bring the agency's total budget to $2798 billion. Historically, the N I H budget has in creased at an annual rate of nearly 8%. At this level, N I H experienced a doubling of its budget about once a decade. T h a t
growth pattern accelerated in 1998 when Congress initiated a five-year doubling of NIH's budget. During this period, the an nual increase averaged around 15%. The sudden reduction in the N I H bud get growth rate—to 2 to 3%—has many worried about the long-term impacts. "We need to maintain the kind of mo mentum that's been achieved by the dou bling over five years," Harold E. Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and former N I H di rector, tells C&EN. If an increase of at least 8% is not awarded annually he warns, "we'll be back where we were before the dou bling started very quickly, and it'll dis courage a lot of people." The importance of maintaining the momentum at N I H was also the focus of an editorial penned by Robert D. Wells, di rector of the Center for Genome Research at the Institute of Bioscience & Technol ogy at Texas A&M University, and William
R. Brinkley dean of the graduate school at Baylor College of Medicine. The editori al, which appeared last month in the Hous ton Chronicle, warns that the modest in crease being discussed in Congress "could stop the scientific momentum that prom ises to result in treatments for some of the world's greatest killers." Wells, who is also president of the Fed eration of American Societies for Experi mental Biology (FASEB), has lobbied for a 10% increase in the N I H budget, but he says that an 8% increase "would be livable." He acknowledges that receiving funding of that magnitude might not be possible given the current economic state. "We believe that Congress would very much like to be at a high level of funding for N I H , but this is a tough budget peri od," Wells explains. Following the recent doubling of the budget, he worries that members of Congress might believe that N I H can coast for a while with only mod est funding increases. BUT THE ABSENCE of available funds for budget increases may be symptomatic of a larger problem. "In my mind, this is a re flection of very, very poor federal man agement of the budget," Varmus says. "This is not a time to cut taxes and deplete the federal reserves. People want medical re search, people want education, and peo ple want things that you can't buy without adequate tax revenue." While the current budget numbers may not be as large as some had hoped, a spokesman for the N I H Office of Budget points out that the situation is not quite as bad as it appears. According to the spokesman, the agency will be able to take advantage of the fact that the fiscal 2003 budget contained a large number of one time-only expenses. T h e equivalent amount of funding in 2 0 0 4 can be funneled into other programs. This means that while the overall NIFI budget may increase only by 2.5 to 3.7%, the research compo nent will increase by about 7%, he explains. This one-time "trick" does appear to bring the budget growth in line with N I H proponents' requests. However, there is more to consider. Ά large part of the increase from fiscal 2003 to 2004 was inbiodefense funding," the NIFI budget spokesman says. "If you take biodefense out of the rest of the N I H budget increase—which is the majority of
"We need to maintain the kind of momentum that's been achieved by the [budget] doubling over five years." HTTP://WWW.CEN-0NLINE.ORG
C&EN
/ AUGUST
11. 2003
17
GOVERNMENT & POLICY istry at NIGMS. Tracking the growth of tactic to provide an additional $3.3 billion it— the increase is about 4%," he says, notchemistry-specific grants is difficult befor education in fiscal 2003, but Republiing that this rate is just above the biomedcause funding isn't allocated by discipline, cans hold the majority in both the House ical inflation rate of 3 3 % . but rather according to types of research, and the Senate. "I don't know if the miThe situation is even more striking for addressing problems that may involve mulnority can pull that off," the insider says. the number of research grants—the usual tiple disciplines. However, Rogers has been What does this all mean for research at bellwether by which the adequacy of the doing his best to monitor funding for NIH? At the National Institute of GenerN I H budget is measured. According to the chemistry and notes that it has held its own al Medical Sciences (NIGMS)—the largest N I H Office of Budget, the number of new in the grants program. supporter of chemical research at NIH— grants in fiscal 2004 is expected to go from the outlook remains hopeful. 10,237 to 1 0 , 5 6 0 - a n increase of 323 "I've been tracking as best I can the numgrants. However, ifyou take out biodefense ber of dollars that go to chemistry depart"We're not experiencing a decrease in grants, the number of new grants is exments, and they have been going up at least the budget," says Nancy L. Vess, deputy pected to go from 9,902 in 2003 to 9,904 as much as the increase in research project budget director at NIGMS. "We feel that in 2004—an increase of only two grants. grants across the N I H as a whole," Rogers over the past five years we have successsays. He also notes that, over the past five fully built up our budget while still mainA ray of hope for the N I H budget may years, chemistry has also been a compotaining our emphasis in the areas that we come in the form of an amendment to the nent of a number of special projects. have traditionally supported, as well as supSenate appropriation bill that Sen. Dianne porting some new and exciting things. We Feinstein (D-Calif.) plans to introduce are now at the point of really digging into when the N I H appropriation comes beONE EXAMPLE of special programs withthose and seeing where they take us," she fore the full Senate this fall. The amendin N I G M S is the chemistry-biology inexplains. ment would add $1.3 billion on top of the terface training grant program. Although current Senate amount of $27.98 billion, the funding for the program hasn't inNIGMS has requested $1.92 billion in according to a spokesman from her office. creased, Rogers points out that "the numthe fiscal 2004 N I H budget, a 4.1% inThis addition would bring the budget inber of training grants and slots has increase over the 2003 funding level of $1.85 crease to 8.5%, putting the agency back creased over the pastfiveyears just because billion. "We are trying to reach a status quo on its historical pace of doubling every 10 we've gotten good applications in that where we can continue to support at a levyears. area." el effort but still provide some inflationary increases and have the opportunity to reThe growth of NIGMS's budget has alGetting this resolution passed may not assess where we are," Vess says. so made several major initiatives possible be so easy, because Congress just doesn't through which chemistry has benefited. have enough money, a budget analyst for Over the past five years, chemistry has For example, the "glue" grant program, N I H points out. Although Sen. Feinstein's done pretty well for itself, says Michael E. which provides up to $5 million in direct office has not yet released the language of Rogers, director of the Division of Pharcosts per year for team research on comthe amendment, the insider believes the macology Physiology & Biological Chemplex issues central to biomedical senator might use a backdoor apscience and NIGMS's mission, proach that proved effective in AGENCY GROWTH includes chemistry contributhe fiscal 2003 cycle. NIH has seen a dramatic increase in funding since 1998 tions. One such glue grant was According to the insider, the used to fund the Consortium for additional funding provided by RESEARCH GRANTS Functional Glycomics, which is the amendment may only be FUNDING COMPETING AWARDS centered around carbohydrate made available to the agency in ACTUAL SUCCESSS FISCAL TOTAL RATE YEAR ($ BILLIONS) CHANGE GRANTS 3 NUMBER chemistry and biology, Rogers late September 2 0 0 4 . "This $7.19 na 6,867 1988 22,017 23% explains. means the outlays associated 1989 7.89 9.8% 22,725 6,157 28 with the funding would not hit NIGMS has also funded the 7.7 1990 8.51 5,620 24 22,527 the books until fiscal 2005," he Protein Structure Initiative, 1991 9.22 8.4 23,352 6,462 29 says. which is devoted to determin10.01 8.6 1992 24,033 6,768 30 ing protein structures in largeFollowing completion of the 1993 10.33 3.2 23,952 6,149 24 volume, high-throughput sysbudget resolution, the senator 24,964 25 10.94 5.9 6,474 1994b tems, Rogers says. Chemists are could return next spring and 27 3.3 6,759 1995 11.3 24,899 definitely involved in that inimove to have the allocation 6,653 28 5.6 25,519 1996 11.93 tiative, he notes. shifted back into the fiscal 2004 31 12.74 6.8 7,390 1997 26,936 cycle—effectively breaking the Another institute that sup7,578 1998 28,399 31 13.65 7.1 2 0 0 4 budget resolution and ports chemistry-related research 32 14.9 30,223 8,566 1999 15.68 freeing up the funds from the fisis the National Institute of cal 2005 budget, the expert exAllergy & Infectious Diseases 2000 18.01 14.9 32 32,184 8,765 plains. "No one is going to go ( N I A I D ) . W i t h one of the 2001 20.47 13.7 34,122 32 9,101 14.1 31 2002 23.36 36,633 9,377 back and say, look, they busted largest budgets among NIH's 27 30 26.98 15.4 9,854 2003 38,038 their budget," he says. At that institutes and centers, N I A I D 2004c 27.66 2.5 na na na point, everyone will be focused received $3.73 billion in fiscal on the 2 0 0 5 budget and the 2003 and has requested $4.34 a The total number of research grant projects includes both competing and noncompeting continuing grants, b In 1994, the accounting system for number 2004 budget is no longer a news billion in fiscal 2 0 0 4 - a 16% of grants was realigned. Small Business Innovation Reseach program grants, story he notes. increase. which are competing awards, were no longer included in the count of grants and success rates, while small program grants (R03) were added into the At first glance, the large Will it work? The Adminiscount, c Requested, na = not available. growth in NIAID's budget aptration was able to employ this 18
C& EN
/ AUGUST
11,
2003
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
pears to put the institute on solid footing to continue its strong growth. However, NIAID is facing some tough budget issues. A big problem is related to the procurement of a next-generation anthrax vaccine. The vaccine is currently being developed with N I A I D funding and is based on a genetically engineered version of recombinant protective antigen—an anthrax protein. The Bush Administration has mandated that N I H purchase and stockpile the vaccine, but it did not provide funding to cover the $233 million price tag for the procurement. This mandate left N I H and, in turn, N I A I D to find the money within its existing budget. "Rather than across-the-board cuts, we've come up with a plan to reset anniversary grant dates and spread the cost over two years," a N I A I D spokesman says. "This way everyone who would normally get funded will get funded."
The institute's plan divides the total charge of $233 million over two years— charging $117 million to its 2003 budget and $116 million to its 2004 budget. In 2003, which was already under way when the mandate came from the White House, 50% of the $117 million is coming from funds specified for biodefense, 25% from AIDS research funds, and 25% from nonbiodefense/non-AIDS funds. In 2004, all of the money will be taken from biodefense funds. To make this plan work, N I A I D will provide six months of funding for the first year of long-term grants—such as five-year grants—issued in fiscal 2003 and 2004, the spokesman explains. The grant cycle will then be reset to move up the grant reapplication date by six months. This means that the institute will free up about half of the money it had planned to spend on new grant funding during 2003 and 2004. According to the spokesman, short-
"There are so many new and exciting things that there is always something else that you want to reach for."
er term grants of two years would not be affected by this plan. As each of NIH's branches works to maintain its growth in the face of modest budget increases, the demand for biomedical and health research advances shows no sign of letting up. "We are in a very tough economic situation and we know that, and we are at war— these are not good omens for major increases in budget," Wells says. However, "FASEB is quite unabashed in its philosophy that medical research is extremely important. In fact, it is the only hope for mankind in terms of improvement of the well-being and health of the nation." But in advocating for larger increases in the N I H budget, the great strides the agency has been able to make with the funds provided by the budget doubling should not be overlooked. "There are so many new and exciting things that there is always something else that you want to reach for," NIGMS's Vess says. "So there are always difficult choices to make. I just want to make the point that we are not going backward either. We are not losing money" •
XRD
TWnrt» ] Ano\ys>sJ
D8 DISCOVER FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH NEW FRONTIERS IN THE NANO-WORLD •SniRUKER
BBXS
BRUKER ADVANCED X-RAY SOLUTIONS Tel (+1) 6 0 8 / 2 7 6 - 3 0 0 0 · Fax (+1) 6 0 8 / 2 7 6 - 3 0 0 6 · http://www.bruker-axs.com
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
C&EN
/ AUGUST
1 1. 2003
19
