From Washington Times

[Guest guest]

Unhealthy cuts

TODAY'S EDITORIAL

May 4, 2007

We'd call the National Institutes of Health a kind of national treasure,

except that it is more than that. The institute and its 27 components pay

dividends every day in saved lives and medical innovations via important

basic research. That's why we're so troubled at President Bush's proposed

budget cuts for NIH in 2008. Congress is in the midst of a series of

hearings on the subject. We're awaiting the hackles.

    Mr. Bush has proposed a $529 million cut over 2007 levels, for a total

2008 budget of $29.8 billion. Even considering that $300 million of this

figure is a transfer to the Global AIDS fund, the resulting cut is

unacceptable. Remember, the $29.8 billion represents a very large swath of

the country's basic scientific research, and some of its most productive, on

a wide range of research areas, from heart disease to cancer research to the

human genome and more.

    In a recent Senate appropriations panel hearing, Sen. Arlen Specter,

Pennsylvania Republican, called it " scandalous " that the nation spends less

than $30 billion on basic research when the benefits are so manifest. We

second that description. NIH funding is an investment in our collective

future. It underwrites basic research that, in many cases, the private

sector cannot or will not undertake. Its role as a kind of national medical

loss leader opens the door to further advances.

    As NIH Director Elias Zerhouni pointed out, NIH funding works out to

roughly $44 a year per American. What a small price for so much. Sure, every

agency head can point to critical work in a bid for more funding. But NIH

can actually demonstrate the benefits.

    The larger story here is that the bipartisan consensus on robust NIH

funding has fallen apart over the last four years. What happened? Funding

doubled over the period 1998-2003. But beginning in 2004, it flatlined and

began to drop. The current budgetary pressures, including the war on terror,

are no doubt part of the explanation. But so is a simple loss of public

interest, which has prompted a drop in focus from the White House and

Congress. This is puzzling. It is not as if the state of cancer in America,

to take one example, warrants the drop. Are Americans simply too busy

worrying about other threats to their well-being?

    Whatever the reason, the underlying facts warrant a substantial budget

increase, not a deep cut. Congress has a key role in the coming weeks. It

should safeguard full funding for the National Institutes of Health.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070503-091417-3368r.htm