Image: Wikimedia Commons/Kevin McCoy
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Brianna Commerford felt a lump. After a few months of feeling mildly ill, she was diagnosed with stage IV Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She was devastated, she was scared, and she was only 9 years old.
Five years later, Brianna is still alive thanks to an experimental treatment she received from the Children’s Oncology Group. Devoted to curing childhood and adolescent cancer, the COG is a clinical trials group that is primarily supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest sponsor of biomedical research in the world.
This month scientists nationwide are petitioning to protect lifesaving research programs like this one before January, when the federal government will automatically slash—or “sequester”—8.2 percent ($2.5 billion) of the NIH budget for 2013 unless Congress stops the move. The money will be withheld because of provisions in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that aimed to cut spending. Combined with the scheduled finale of the Bush-era tax cuts, the provisions are expected to push the country over the now proverbial fiscal cliff.
Separate from the scheduled downsizing of Medicare (2 percent or $14 billion), the NIH cuts threaten to corrode the foundations of biomedical education and research in the U.S. Agencies including the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Defense would also be saddled with lighter coffers. The prospect of deep cuts is particularly alarming to biomedical researchers because the cutbacks would come at a time of already strained budgets.
From 1999 to 2003 the federal allocation for the NIH doubled, which triggered a tremendous boom in the biomedical workforce, according to a 2008 report from an NIH advisory committee. In the years following, though, federal support has failed to keep pace with this expansion in labor; rising inflation and three cuts to the NIH budget in the last seven years have meant that budgeted funds largely go to maintaining the status quo rather than to fresh initiatives.
With fewer awards available, this shortfall has incited fierce competition for federal grants, and consequently the success rate for winning an NIH grant is now at its lowest level in American history. The global financial meltdown of 2008 strained matters further when several private foundations were forced to shut down.
“The sequester could affect both existing and future grants,” says Christy Gullion, an advocate for the University of Washington, which would potentially lose $83 million next year. She has been lobbying in Washington, D.C., since the summer of 2011, when lawmakers resolved the debt-ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act. “We are in uncharted territory if the sequester takes effect.”
Far from the nation’s capital in the birch forests of Maine, many aspiring biologists opt to spend their free hours in the laboratory of Richmond Thompson, a neuroscientist at Bowdoin College. His studies on how different chemicals in the brain—such as vasopressin, vasotocin and testosterone—affect social behavior offer the perfect research opportunity for intrepid minds.
Thompson’s mentorship program receives part of its support from the NSF through its Broader Impacts initiative, which emphasizes undergraduate education and provides monies for students to perform research during the summer.
“At small schools like Bowdoin, we use undergraduates to do a lot of our research,” says Thompson. “If the money starts to disappear, not only does our research start to slow down, but it also means far fewer experiences for undergraduates.”
Another scientist fearing the aftermath of the sequestration is Puneet Opal, a neurologist at Northwestern University who has published an editorial opposing the cuts in The Atlantic. He studies spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 (SCA1), a genetic brain disorder that strikes in adulthood, causing the progressive loss of balance and of muscle control in the face.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentJoin with Life Technologies, cancer researchers, and patient advocates across the country working to prevent sequestration. While there’s still time, let Congress know you support the funding that advances breakthroughs in cancer and other disease research here. http://owl.li/fZlAQ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Federal Government is broke and beyond its ability to pay for things like research. The sequestration does not go far enough in my opinion. We should cut all departments until we have a zero deficit. Then we should continue this until we begin paying off the 16 trillion dollars the general fund owes, and begin putting money away for the 100 to 200 trillion in obligations for medicare, federal retirements and other obligations our politicians have gotten us into. Just as we must cut when we run out of money, the government must do the same or we will continue building debt until we default and the country becomes a third world nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read many reasons why taxes should be raised, but this one is the most lame excuse yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm just curious, zingerb, about 2 things:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) From where do your economic theories arise? Complete gutting of discretionary spending would only cripple investment in the future, and set American science back decades(or more likely, deal it a death blow). Could you outline how cutting discretionary spending will balance the federal budget? (Hint: it won't)
2) Why in blazes would someone who is so seemingly against government sponsored research be on a site like this?
Really? In what way is gutting federal support of research into treatments and cures, "lame"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anything about “”? Research =/= attending conferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anything about "gutting federal support of research"? Research =/= attending conferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm an older American. I have a knee replaced and have been a patient for a number of health-related issues. I would "logically" be someone who would be unhappy by this. But I'm not. Why? Because I am sick and tired of politicians using me as a political football - especially Obama. The man has ZERO integrity and the national debt is a greater threat than the fiscal cliff. Yet he has zero desire to pay it down. Instead it's spend, spend, spend. Well - enough of it. If I die early, so be it. I love America, not Obama. I don't much care for Boehner either as he couldn't persuade a parched man to drink a nice cup of cool water. But at least he wants to curb growth. No mention by any of them about paying down the debt so that the service on the debt isn't such a head wind. Let's all go over the cliff together and then maybe we'll start thinking with the brains the gods gave us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting to see this briefing. In its current issue SA chronicles the problems facing medical research and the conflict of interests involving NIH folks. Thinking about it I'm convinced that organizations as big and powerful as NIH are more detrimental than beneficial for society. Believe me, if there is a glimmer of hope for society, it lies in science, but not one that relies in bureaucracies like NIH. So, here I go, let the fiscal cliff do its work to prune us from these monsters!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe TeaPublicans do not "believe" in Evolution, or the Greenhouse Effect on Global Warming, or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years; they oppose research on stem cells or more effective contraception. They do support that schools teach Religion and Creationist mythology. To make it short, they do not support Science. Moreover, they want to destroy it. As long as their Churches remain open and tax-exempted they want the laboratories closed as they drain the money from tax-payers. They created the "fiscal cliff" and want to perpetuate it. Then, why on Earth can anybody believe that they are going to listen to scientists and citizens that support Science that going over the "fiscal cliff" will hurt scientific endeavours? They will never vote to increase taxes on their bosses, the ones that paid for their failed political campaign. Science be damned!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou went to the Athens School of Economics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBOO-HOO HOO HOO! Obama doesn't support scientific research; Obama only supports expanding government payrolls with more and more folks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspending more and more OPM chasing smaller and smaller projects. Sooner or later (sooner) Obama will have spent 120+++% of GDP, caused the USA to default on its obligations, enslaved former American citizens, destroyed the former USA , turned over to China the former 'heartland' farmland of the USA, etc. etc. etc. rendering the once greatest natin ever known to a footnote to the Roman Empire in the history books. UNLESS spending is chopped chopped chopped to be less than revenues, the 'surplus' used to repay creditors world-wide. THEN resumption of scientific inquiry may resume on projects taking more than two years to pay for themselves.
Actually, there was little laboratory research in the Roman Empire. Everybody was busy with debauchery and they neglected to apply for Government-sponsored grants. In all earnest, whre do you think Big Pharma gets the development of new medications? From NIH-sponsored grants in the universities. You are the kind of tiresome fellow that God knows why you read scientific literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this