In the 12 October 2012 issue of Cell, Thomas Pollard of Yale University argues that the scientific community can ill afford to take its continued funding for granted.
In our present situation, advocacy for support of science must be a priority, perhaps even an obligation, for every biologist. Our community must take responsibility to convince politicians that funding biomedical research will benefit not only human health, but also our economic well being.
While research funding has always been subject to the vagaries of the federal budget process in the U.S., the situation may now be especially challenging. As Pollard notes:
The situation in the United States for 2013 is particularly dire. The failure of Congress to adopt a deficit reduction program in 2011 resulted in a fall-back option called sequestration, which may reduce federal funding across the board by 8% on January 1, 2013. If this comes to pass, we face widespread unemployment in the biological research community and the loss of many valuable research programs. Second, although US citizens still hold science and scientists in high esteem, some politicians use ideological opposition to scientific findings (evolution and climate change to cite two examples) to take anti-science positions.
Already, the perennial continuing resolution – a stopgap measure to keep the federal government funded while Congress defers its obligation to pass a budget – is causing concern. NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Sally Rockey, announced online that NIH will temporarily reduce funding on current grants.
Until a final FY 2013 appropriation is made into law, we will be issuing non-competing research grant awards at 90% of the previous committed level indicated on the most recent Notice of Award for your grant. This is consistent with our practice during most CRs of late.
While unlikely to happen, the effects of exercising the sequestration provisions could be devastating. According to the OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the NIH “would have to halt or curtail scientific research, including needed research into cancer and childhood diseases,” facing a reduction of $2.5 billion. Other funding agencies would face equally harsh reductions (National Science Foundation: $586 million; Department of Energy: $400 million; NASA: $417 million; Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology: $65 million).
Times are tough everywhere, but Thomas Pollard is right – scientists need to become effective advocates for continued federal funding of basic scientific research. Perhaps more importantly, these issues need to be framed in terms that resonate not just with patient advocates and those who see the long-term potential of basic science, but with those who would be more inclined to support the endeavor on the basis of its clear economic benefit (more on this later).