America's scientific and medical progress threatened by flat funding for NIH

[Guest guest]

Public release date: 19-Mar-2007

Contact: Janet Firshein

jfirshein@...

301-652-1558

Burness Communications

New report: America's scientific and medical progress threatened by flat

funding for NIH

Leading US universities call for increased NIH funding to protect health,

retain nation's scientists, shore up US global leadership in research

(Washington, D.C.) – Years of stagnant budgets outpaced by inflation

threaten the progress of biomedical research and could thwart advances in

treatments that are within reach, nine of the nation's most preeminent

scientific and medical institutions told Congress today. In a new report on

the status of U.S. medical research and its funding, the group explained how

perennially flat funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has

halted promising research in mid-stream, challenged seasoned researchers to

continue to achieve scientific progress, and threatened the future of young

investigators pursuing careers in academic research. And, if left

unaddressed, these problems could undermine U.S. global leadership in

biomedical research, the report warns.

" When scientists have to spend most of their time trying to get funded,

caution wins out over cutting-edge ideas, creativity sacrifices to

convention, and scientific progress gives way to meetings and grant

applications, " said report contributor and infectious disease expert

Siliciano, M.D., Ph.D., at The s Hopkins University School of Medicine.

" Right now, very, very productive scientists are doing too little research.

Instead, they are spending their time trying to get their labs funded

again, " he said.

The report was co-authored by The University of California, Columbia

University, Harvard University, The s Hopkins University, Partners

HealthCare, The University of Texas at Austin, Washington University in St.

Louis, The University of Wisconsin Madison, and Yale University.

The group says that to fulfill the promise of previous investments by

Congress the country needs to provide more consistent and robust funding of

NIH. According to the report, Within Our Grasp—Or Slipping Away? Assuring a

New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress, the doubling of NIH's budget

between 1998 and 2003 enabled advances in basic research that transformed

understanding of diseases affecting millions of Americans. But the NIH

budget has been virtually frozen since 2003 and has shrunk by at least 8

percent after inflation is considered, with recent estimates up to 13

percent. Most recently, a small increase approved by Congress in the 2007

budget would be virtually wiped out by the Bush Administration's proposed

2008 budget, continuing the downward spiral in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The implications are far-reaching for science, medicine, the economy and

U.S. leadership in biomedical science, they add.

The 21-page report says that the country reaped a strong pay-off from

previous years of robust funding of basic biomedical research, achieving

progress in treating and preventing many devastating diseases and

conditions. But the American public will ultimately pay the price for

slowing the pace of research as scientists downsize their laboratories and

abandon some of their most innovative work.

The report argues that research momentum gains have slowed, and in some

cases may be lost, if flat funding continues. For example, in the fight

against cancer, " The number of drugs moving into the pipeline that are based

on our new, more profound genetic and molecular understanding of cancer is

extraordinary—and there's no money to handle the testing of these

compounds, " said Joan Brugge, Ph.D., who chairs the Department of Cell

Biology at Harvard Medical School.

A similar situation faces the quest to cure spinal cord and brain injuries.

" Ten years ago, the search for treatment of spinal cord injury was a

daunting and hopeless task, " said Strittmatter, M.D., Ph.D., a

professor of neurology and neurobiology at Yale University's School of

Medicine. Today that is changing, in part due to the discovery of NOGO, a

molecule that prevents regeneration of spinal cord nerves. Scientists are

investigating whether the molecule can be inhibited, allowing the spinal

cord and neurons in the brain to repair themselves.

" The neurological sciences are on the launching pad of a revolution, "

according to Strittmatter. " We are at a juncture where we can begin

identifying multiple molecular targets for the neurological diseases that

have stymied us for so long. Without funding, they may go undiscovered, and

we will have only weakly effective therapies. "

The Threat to Future Scientific Endeavor

Despite the great push forward that accompanied the doubling of the NIH

budget, subsequent flat funding has put many projects at risk. Today, eight

of ten research grant applications are unfunded, according to the report.

Those that are funded often require multiple submissions and suffer lapses

in funding. Certain NIH institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute,

report that they can only fund 11 percent of research project grant

applications, rejecting many of exceptional quality.

The effects are being felt by both principal investigators and young

researchers new to the field. For young researchers, the decreased funding

contributes to another problem: a multi-year wait for receiving their first

grant. In 1970, the average age recipient of a first grant was 34.2 years;

today it is 41.7.

" Our product is not just our technology or medical breakthroughs, " said Dr.

Brent Iverson, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin. " Our College of

Natural Sciences alone puts 1,000 undergrads in research situations in labs,

most with NIH funding. That is a catalyst for creating innovative new

scientists, " he added.

Consequently, senior scientists fear that young people will turn away from

science because the funding situation is so bleak. Scientists report that

many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in

science, choosing law, business, and other professions. Losing young

scientists today will cost the U.S. a lot later, the report warns. " That

will have a generational impact that will take 15 years to fix, " said

son, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In addition, scientists are increasingly having to abandon some of their

most innovative and promising research in favor of more conventional

projects with more predictable results that are more likely to be funded.

Principal investigators also must spend enormous amounts of time fundraising

and writing grants rather than conducting research.

Others are following research dollars overseas, to countries in Europe and

Asia that are making investment in biomedical sciences high national

priorities and actively recruiting star U.S. scientists, according to

scientists interviewed for the report.

Said Nobel Laureate Kandel at Columbia University Medical Center, who

contributed to the report: " The scientific community is one of the driving

forces of the economy. In biology, it helps drive the pharmaceutical

industry, and helps people live longer in a productive way. Now, the rug has

been pulled from under science in this country. We'll lose scientific

manpower to European countries, and to India, China and Japan. "

The funding problem is so great that the NIH's 2007 " Fiscal Policy for Grant

Awards, " urges decisionmakers to consider " the goal of not losing

outstanding laboratories, " as they allocate limited funds, says the report.

The group says that addressing the funding crisis now is imperative given

the demographics of the population. " Medical treatments take decades to

develop, " says Harvard's Dr. Brugge. " If we wait until the baby boomers

retire to find the most effective means for prevention and treatment for

diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, we will break the bank. "

###

Copies of Within Our Grasp – Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of

Scientific and Medical Progress, can be obtained as of Monday, March 19,

2007, at 3 p.m. ET at: http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/nih_funding.pdf

The press conference is being live Web cast at:

http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/nih.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/bc-nra031907.php

_________________________________________________________________

Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office

Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Public release date: 19-Mar-2007

Contact: Janet Firshein

jfirshein@...

301-652-1558

Burness Communications

New report: America's scientific and medical progress threatened by flat

funding for NIH

Leading US universities call for increased NIH funding to protect health,

retain nation's scientists, shore up US global leadership in research

(Washington, D.C.) – Years of stagnant budgets outpaced by inflation

threaten the progress of biomedical research and could thwart advances in

treatments that are within reach, nine of the nation's most preeminent

scientific and medical institutions told Congress today. In a new report on

the status of U.S. medical research and its funding, the group explained how

perennially flat funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has

halted promising research in mid-stream, challenged seasoned researchers to

continue to achieve scientific progress, and threatened the future of young

investigators pursuing careers in academic research. And, if left

unaddressed, these problems could undermine U.S. global leadership in

biomedical research, the report warns.

" When scientists have to spend most of their time trying to get funded,

caution wins out over cutting-edge ideas, creativity sacrifices to

convention, and scientific progress gives way to meetings and grant

applications, " said report contributor and infectious disease expert

Siliciano, M.D., Ph.D., at The s Hopkins University School of Medicine.

" Right now, very, very productive scientists are doing too little research.

Instead, they are spending their time trying to get their labs funded

again, " he said.

The report was co-authored by The University of California, Columbia

University, Harvard University, The s Hopkins University, Partners

HealthCare, The University of Texas at Austin, Washington University in St.

Louis, The University of Wisconsin Madison, and Yale University.

The group says that to fulfill the promise of previous investments by

Congress the country needs to provide more consistent and robust funding of

NIH. According to the report, Within Our Grasp—Or Slipping Away? Assuring a

New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress, the doubling of NIH's budget

between 1998 and 2003 enabled advances in basic research that transformed

understanding of diseases affecting millions of Americans. But the NIH

budget has been virtually frozen since 2003 and has shrunk by at least 8

percent after inflation is considered, with recent estimates up to 13

percent. Most recently, a small increase approved by Congress in the 2007

budget would be virtually wiped out by the Bush Administration's proposed

2008 budget, continuing the downward spiral in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The implications are far-reaching for science, medicine, the economy and

U.S. leadership in biomedical science, they add.

The 21-page report says that the country reaped a strong pay-off from

previous years of robust funding of basic biomedical research, achieving

progress in treating and preventing many devastating diseases and

conditions. But the American public will ultimately pay the price for

slowing the pace of research as scientists downsize their laboratories and

abandon some of their most innovative work.

The report argues that research momentum gains have slowed, and in some

cases may be lost, if flat funding continues. For example, in the fight

against cancer, " The number of drugs moving into the pipeline that are based

on our new, more profound genetic and molecular understanding of cancer is

extraordinary—and there's no money to handle the testing of these

compounds, " said Joan Brugge, Ph.D., who chairs the Department of Cell

Biology at Harvard Medical School.

A similar situation faces the quest to cure spinal cord and brain injuries.

" Ten years ago, the search for treatment of spinal cord injury was a

daunting and hopeless task, " said Strittmatter, M.D., Ph.D., a

professor of neurology and neurobiology at Yale University's School of

Medicine. Today that is changing, in part due to the discovery of NOGO, a

molecule that prevents regeneration of spinal cord nerves. Scientists are

investigating whether the molecule can be inhibited, allowing the spinal

cord and neurons in the brain to repair themselves.

" The neurological sciences are on the launching pad of a revolution, "

according to Strittmatter. " We are at a juncture where we can begin

identifying multiple molecular targets for the neurological diseases that

have stymied us for so long. Without funding, they may go undiscovered, and

we will have only weakly effective therapies. "

The Threat to Future Scientific Endeavor

Despite the great push forward that accompanied the doubling of the NIH

budget, subsequent flat funding has put many projects at risk. Today, eight

of ten research grant applications are unfunded, according to the report.

Those that are funded often require multiple submissions and suffer lapses

in funding. Certain NIH institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute,

report that they can only fund 11 percent of research project grant

applications, rejecting many of exceptional quality.

The effects are being felt by both principal investigators and young

researchers new to the field. For young researchers, the decreased funding

contributes to another problem: a multi-year wait for receiving their first

grant. In 1970, the average age recipient of a first grant was 34.2 years;

today it is 41.7.

" Our product is not just our technology or medical breakthroughs, " said Dr.

Brent Iverson, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin. " Our College of

Natural Sciences alone puts 1,000 undergrads in research situations in labs,

most with NIH funding. That is a catalyst for creating innovative new

scientists, " he added.

Consequently, senior scientists fear that young people will turn away from

science because the funding situation is so bleak. Scientists report that

many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in

science, choosing law, business, and other professions. Losing young

scientists today will cost the U.S. a lot later, the report warns. " That

will have a generational impact that will take 15 years to fix, " said

son, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In addition, scientists are increasingly having to abandon some of their

most innovative and promising research in favor of more conventional

projects with more predictable results that are more likely to be funded.

Principal investigators also must spend enormous amounts of time fundraising

and writing grants rather than conducting research.

Others are following research dollars overseas, to countries in Europe and

Asia that are making investment in biomedical sciences high national

priorities and actively recruiting star U.S. scientists, according to

scientists interviewed for the report.

Said Nobel Laureate Kandel at Columbia University Medical Center, who

contributed to the report: " The scientific community is one of the driving

forces of the economy. In biology, it helps drive the pharmaceutical

industry, and helps people live longer in a productive way. Now, the rug has

been pulled from under science in this country. We'll lose scientific

manpower to European countries, and to India, China and Japan. "

The funding problem is so great that the NIH's 2007 " Fiscal Policy for Grant

Awards, " urges decisionmakers to consider " the goal of not losing

outstanding laboratories, " as they allocate limited funds, says the report.

The group says that addressing the funding crisis now is imperative given

the demographics of the population. " Medical treatments take decades to

develop, " says Harvard's Dr. Brugge. " If we wait until the baby boomers

retire to find the most effective means for prevention and treatment for

diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, we will break the bank. "

###

Copies of Within Our Grasp – Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of

Scientific and Medical Progress, can be obtained as of Monday, March 19,

2007, at 3 p.m. ET at: http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/nih_funding.pdf

The press conference is being live Web cast at:

http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/nih.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/bc-nra031907.php

_________________________________________________________________

Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office

Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/