A Smaller NIH Budget Means Fewer Scientists And 'Too-Safe' Studies

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY

A Smaller NIH Budget Means Fewer Scientists And 'Too-Safe' Studies
September 1, 2006; Page A11

(snip)

A few years ago Dr. Welch, a molecular oncologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, discovered a molecule that suppresses metastasis, the insidious process in which cancer cells break off from the primary tumor and seed distant sites in the body. He had planned to test whether the gene that makes this molecule, dubbed BRMS1, is turned off in women with metastatic breast cancer. If so, he hoped to design a treatment that would turn the gene back on, test it in mice and then, if all went well, in people.

But when he submitted the proposal to the National Institutes of Health, which funds most biomedical research in the U.S., he was turned down. He had gathered breast-cancer tissue samples and preliminary data from about 20 women showing that a turned-off BRMS1 gene is associated with metastatic breast cancer. A "study section" of scientists who evaluate proposals, however, said he needed data on hundreds of women (which he did not have the money to gather; Catch-22). Absent that, they gave his proposal too low a score to stay above the cutoff at which money ran out.

And so it has gone for an increasing number of biomedical researchers. Starting in 1995, the budget of the National Institutes of Health more than doubled, with support for scientist-initiated studies rising to $9.7 billion in fiscal 2003 from $4.3 billion in fiscal 1995. But in 2004, Congress and the White House, calling for reduced budgets in the wake of tax cuts and a growing deficit, slammed on the brakes. Ever since then, NIH's budget has been flat or, adjusting for inflation, down. The chance that a scientist's work will be funded fell to 22% last year from 27% in 1995, and to less than 10% in some fields. Now the warnings are coming true: The plug is being pulled on promising research by scientists with solid track records.

(snip)

NIH was never known for supporting risky ideas, but scientists say it has become even worse with the budget crunch. Grant reviewers are increasingly unwilling to gamble scarce money on speculative/bold (pick your adjective) approaches to understanding and treating disease... Dr. Schneyer estimates that some 5% of Massachusetts General Hospital scientists have only a few months left on existing grants and no new ones in sight. Although scientists may be "geneticists at MGH" or "neuroscientists at UCSF," unless they have tenure their salary comes out of a grant, not from the ostensible employer. As grants disappear, therefore, it isn't just that studies won't be done; researchers will have to look for another line of work, especially if they are Ph.D.s rather than M.D.s, who can at least see patients to bring in income.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115706406018051063.html (subscription)

[skids]

1. Everyone who dies of cancer past 2020...

...another casualty of the Bush administration.

[Kutjara]

2. Not an accident.

"As grants disappear, therefore, it isn't just that studies won't be done; researchers will have to look for another line of work, especially if they are Ph.D.s rather than M.D.s, who can at least see patients to bring in income."

Of course. How else would big pharma be able to pick and choose from the cream of the research crop? BushCo will happily let academic research die, while skimming the 'best' scientists (defined as the most likely to yield a quick buck) off to its corporate sponsors. After all, academic research equals knowledge (which BushCo regard as of no value), while corporate research equals bucks (which is BushCo's God).

This is a clear case of same shit, different wrapper.

[NC_Nurse]

3. They're not big on Science

they prefer "faith-based" research - like abstinence programs and praying for a cure. If research doesn't fit their agenda, they skew it or suppress it.
Welcome to the new Dark ages. :eyes:
Money talks, bullshit walks. That should be their campaign slogan. It would be honest for a change.

[bridgit]

4. and more junk science...

[etherealtruth]

5. Science Schmience ...

If Chimpy's "god" wanted you to be cured ... you'd be cured.

I really can't understand this crazed opposition to science (all scientific thought) by the Chimp and his evil cabal. It's more than just perverse religious beliefs ... The Neo-cons themselves (the neocon junta leadership) are not "religious" ... what the heck is this ????

[question everything]

6. It really started with Reagan, whose administration distrusted

anything intelligent. It was a reaction to the shining stars of the Kennedy administration.

Even papa Bush, who did merit his Yale education, tried to hide behind being a Texas hick.

This what was so great about Clinton and Gore - two high academic achievers who were proud of it. But the Republicans cannot stomach intelligence and brilliant minds. So they keep cutting funds for academic research. After all, cutting taxes for the rich is more important. Spending money on education in Iraq is more important. Well, education would be nice, as opposed to the military activities.

[etherealtruth]

7. Very, very true (sadly)

Excellent points and examples.

I am at a loss to explain the "anti-intellectualism" ... (I do understand that nothing is more important than expanding the wealth and power of the "ultra-rich"), but on a personal level I am truly awed by brilliant thought.