Science Wins Reprieve in U.S. Budget Deal

Congress gives National Institutes of Health a big boost and avoids cuts to research agencies sought by Trump

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Funding for US science agencies will stay flat or even increase over the next several months, under a US$1-trillion spending deal announced on April 30. The plan devised by Congress, which covers the remainder of the 2017 budget year, avoids the sharp cuts to science proposed by US President Donald Trump.

The biggest winner is the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whose budget would rise by $2 billion compared to the 2016 level, for a total of $34 billion. The National Science Foundation would remain steady at just under $7.5 billion, while NASA’s budget would rise by about 2%, to $19.7 billion. And the Environmental Protection Agency, which Trump wants to cut by 31% in fiscal year 2018, would receive roughly $8.1 billion, a decrease of about 1% from 2016.

“From our perspective this is a great package, so we can put [fiscal year 2017] behind us and move on with our lives,” says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative relations at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Rockville, Maryland.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But that does not mean that scientists can breathe easy just yet: the largely positive 2017 deal does not necessarily indicate how Congress will handle funding for 2018, says Michael Lubell, a physicist at City College of CUNY in New York City. Lawmakers “have a year to fall in line [with the president] if they want to”, he says.

Trump’s 2018 budget request, released in March, seeks an 18% cut for the NIH and a 5.6% cut to the Department of Energy. It also proposes to eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds high-risk, high-reward research, along with a global-health research centre at the NIH and the Sea Grant education and research programme at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Breaking down the budget

The 2017 deal formulated by Congress would fund the government through 30 September. Its provisions include:

  • $352 million for the NIH to carry out provisions of the 21st Cures Act, a law enacted last year to reform drug development and biomedical research. The bill also includes increases of $400 million for the agency’s Alzheimer’s disease research programme, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and $110 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.

  • $1.9 billion for NASA’s Earth-science research programme, roughly equal to the 2016 level. The bill includes support for the Pre-Aerosol, Clouds, and Ocean Ecosystem satellite mission that Trump wants to eliminate.

  • $1.9 billion for planetary science at NASA, an increase of roughly $300 million from the 2016 level. That includes $275 million for a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, including a lander. The bill would set aside $408 million for the Mars 2020 mission – and give NASA the green-light to investigate the possibility of sending a helicopter to the red planet.

  • $5.7 billion for NOAA, a $90 million drop from the 2016 level.

  • $5.4 billion for the Department of Energy Office of Science, a $42-million bump from 2016, and $306 million for ARPA-E.

“This isn’t anything like what the Trump administration had sought,” says Matthew Hourihan, director of research-and-development budget and policy programme at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC. “This is clearly Congress reasserting its own priorities.”

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the measure as early as tomorrow, with the Senate to follow. Then lawmakers will turn their attention to plans for the 2018 budget year. The White House is expected to release a full budget request in late May that is likely to include the same massive cuts to civilian programmes, and increases for military spending, as the “skinny budget” it released in March.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on May 1, 2017.

Sara Reardon is a freelance biomedical journalist based in Bozeman, Mont. She is a former staff reporter at Nature, New Scientist and Science and has a master’s degree in molecular biology.

More by Sara Reardon

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe