8.03.2006

Scientific Research Funding

Just for your information, the National Institutes of Health (The NIH) is the primary source of funding for medical research in the U.S. Over the past several years (under G.W. Bush) the budget has grown at less than the rate of inflation and for the first time the budget is actually less this year than in 2005. Furthermore, with the rising costs of everything (supplies, energy, etc) it costs more money to do current research than in the past thus making the budget cuts even more severe. The NIH budget is about $28 billion total for 2006. Now I know that sounds like a lot, but in 2004 the U.S. spent $437 billion on the military alone. This lack of funding is now having a direct affect on the pace of research. People I know in my lab our being let go, post docs are looking for new careers, and PIs (principal investigators) are scrambling for funding. The lack of funding from the government often causes talented people to work for private companies instead of research institutes. Most of these companies are simply looking for the next Viagra (a lucrative product in other words) rather than doing actual research for the sake of science alone. Bush has recently reinforced his ignorance of the importance of medical research by vetoing (for their first time in his presidency) the stem cell bill. Great discoveries have been made in recent science and the rate of cancer deaths has declined, but many diseases could be cured in our lifetimes if there was a greater priority on scientific funding.

4 comments:

Pete said...

Maybe if the NIH funed a study on the "power of prayer", they would get more money under the Bush administration

Anonymous said...

Points to consider:

Where is it mandated in the Constitution that the Federal government has an obligation to fund scientific research?

As a percentage of the overall Federal budget, how much is the military budget? How has the spending on the military, again as a percentage of the overall Federal budget, tracked since WW2?

Do you know there are both embryonic and adult stem cells? Do you know that adult stem cells research is not only promising, but also has already developed treatments whereas embryonic stem cells do not even have human trials on the horizon? Could this be the reason that researchers are turning to the Federal government for funding of embryonic stem cell research; that it is a matter of venture capital and other private investment and funding going with the demonstrated potential of adult stem cells and not to embryonic stem cell research?

Kujo said...

In response to your points…

I don’t know what a constitutional mandate has to do with anything. Is the government not obligated to better the health of its citizens?

As far as percentages… the U.S. spends roughly 25% of its budget on the military while only about 2% on biological research.

And I know that there are adult stem cell lines but, from the NIH “Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin” whereas “Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body” and “Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.”


Who knows if stem cell will be helpful in curing disease, but not funding the research to find out because of religious beliefs is ignorant.

appojax said...

in the nyt i was reading about the AIDS conference going on. every year something weird or fuked up happens. that's why this time the leader of the host country canada i think is not attending. but, what would he have to say about it anyway.