GOVERNMENT & POLICY
MEDICAL R&D VERSUS BASIC RESEARCH Request for big funding jump at N I H , small increase at NSF rankles some in Congress
I
MBALANCE. THAT S WHAT IS BUGGING
some members of Congress about President George W Bush'sfiscal2003 budget proposal for civilian research and development. Specifically, they are concerned that the National Institutes of Health, a politically popular agency, would get a whopping 16.7% increase over 2002, raising its budget to $27.4 billion. Yet the National Science Foundation, the U.S. government's main funding agency for civilian science, would get a modest 3.6% increase, bringing its 2003 budget to $37 billion (C&EN, Feb. 18, page 34). T h e House Science Committee held a hearing on the R&D budget proposal last month. There, lawmakers talked gingerly around N I H budget figures but pushed Bush Administration officials about what they see as a slight to NSF. "Even a casual glance at the budget makes clear Boehlert what the R&D priorities are: biomedical research and the fight against terrorism at home and abroad," said panel Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N. Y). "But I'm concerned that the proposed budget treats these items not just as priorities but as panaceas." He explained: "NIH alone cannot undergird our economic health or even improve human health. Ifet the N I H budget is now larger than that of the rest of the civilian science agencies put together, and just the increase in the N I H budget is larger than the research budget of NSF." If the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,2001, had not happened, "this committee would be madder than hell" about the minimal increase for civilian science in the 2003 budget request, Boehlert added. Rep. Ralph M. Hall (D-Texas), ranking Democrat on the panel, pointed out that chemistry and physics research at NSF would take a financial hit under the President's budget proposal. "I truly have to wonder if that makes any sense," Hall mused. 34
C&EN
/
MARCH
A,
2002
Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) suggested lowering the increase in N I H ' s budget slightly and providing more money to NSF, giving both agencies a 14% increase in 2003. "Y)u need the knowledge of basic research," Smith said. BASIC RESEARCH in chemistry, biology and physics supports advances in medicine, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.). For example, work in physics led to computerized axial tomography now widely used as a diagnostic tool, said Ehlers, a physicist.
In other questioning, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) asked Marburger about how new federal performance standards for research would account for the longterm benefits of basic, as opposed to applied, research. Marburger said he is working with the White House Office of Management & Budget on this issue. T h e goal is to ensure that federal investments in basic research provide a return in discoveries, the President's science adviser said. Other concerns that legislators raised at the hearing revolved around research on climate change. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), who chairs the Science Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics, is skeptical about claims that human activities are influencing Earth's climate. He criticized the billionplus dollars the federal government has spent on global-change research annually for the past decade, saying, "I think we've w wasted a lot of money" 5 Rohrabacher argued £i that scientists who believe £ that global warming is reo al are good at public rela° tions and "know how to a.
get their hands on federal research dollars." Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), agreed with Rohrabacher and asked Marburger how much federal research money goes Ehlers Marburger to scientists who do not believe in global warming. The NSF budget should be going up as "It does seem to be a tendency that their rapidly as NIH's, Ehlers argued. "Y)u can't projects never get funded," the Texas confund nanotechnology with nanodollars," gressman said. he quipped. Marburger responded that federal comJohn H. Marburger III, director of the petitive grant programs for climate change White House Office of Science & Techdo not take into account researchers' views nology Policy and the president's science on global warming but rather the aspects adviser, said the Administration asked for of the environment on which they plan to a greater R&D increase at N I H because focus their work. Peer review panels for the complexity of livgrant applications ining systems is much clude a diversity of greater than other syspoints of view on glotems. Marburger is albal warming, Marburso a physicist. ger added. If federal funding _____ _____ Boehlert also comwere based on commented on federal cliplexity of systems, Ehlers responded, remate-change research, but from a different search in astrophysics would receive the perspective than Rohrabacher's. "I'm conbiggest chunk of money cerned especially that the Department of Ehlers also expressed concern that, inEnergy seems wholly uninterested in and ternationally, the U.S. is slipping in the unprepared to carry out the National Cliamount of R&D funding as compared to mate Change Technology Initiative," he its gross domestic product. The US. cursaid. The Science Committee will hold a rently ranks third worldwide but may soon hearing on this issue in March, he added. — fall to fourth behind South Korea, he said. CHERYLH0GUE
"You can't fund nanotechnology with nanodollars."
HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
