President Bush submitted his FY 2004 budget proposals to Congress on February 3, 2003, as required by law. However, meeting that deadline was the only thing ordinary about this budget year.
Last year the 107th Congress adjourned without putting into place the spending plan for the current FY 2003 fiscal year that began on October 1, 2002. Consequently, the FY 2004 budget was developed without the benefit of knowing what the current funding levels would be. The spending plan was already overshadowed by the war on terrorism, the prospects of military action against Iraq, and a stalled economy. A note of tragedy was added to these concerns when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon reentry into the earth’s atmosphere on February 1.
The article below provides highlights of the FY 2004 budget proposal for selected biomedical research funding agencies. The accompanying article describes final FY 2003 spending levels that were approved by the 108th Congress on February 13.
National Institutes of Health: The President proposed $27.89 billion for the NIH budget in FY 2004. This increase is some $730 million or 2.7% over the FY 2003 appropriation of $27.16 billion. (The actual NIH program level for FY 2003 will be slightly lower, about $26.45 billion because of various additions and subtractions mandated by Congress. See information on FY 2003 funding.)
The FY 2004 recommendation comes in sharp contrast to the generous increases NIH received during a five-year campaign to double its budget. The doubling effort, which was supported by both Congress and the administration, was accomplished through increases averaging about 15% per year. The goal of the doubling was intended to strengthen NIH’s capacity to address health problems through research.
In its first post-doubling budget submission, the administration noted that despite the small overall increase, research at the NIH would rise by 7.5% in FY 2004. A total of $1.9 billion will be added to the research budget from both new money and through transfers from other parts of the NIH budget. A number of items in NIH’s FY 2003 appropriation represent one-time costs that will not be repeated in FY 2004, such as $250 million to purchase anthrax vaccine, $375 million for extramural bioterrorism facility construction, and $77 million for extramural construction grants. Funds for construction on the NIH campus will decrease from $769 in FY 2003 to $80 million in FY 2004, with the balance transferred to research. In addition, $499 million in new funds will be added. The research funds are to provide a 4.3% increase for the large pool of NIH research unrelated to bio-defense as well as a 117% increase for the small pool of bio-defense research, which is mainly funded by NIAID.
In FY 2004 the NIH will provide the 26,958 non-competing continuing grants with a one percent increase over the previous year’s level. This is less than what was anticipated and will not keep pace with the 3.3% rate of biomedical inflation. The savings generated from slower growth in grants will make it possible to increase the number of new grants. The president’s budget proposes that 10,509 new and competing grants be funded in FY 2004, up 344 or 3% from an estimated 10,165 in FY 2003. The vast majority of these new grants would fund bio-terrorism defense research. Bio-defense grants are projected to rise from 338 to 661. New and competing grants not related to bio-defense would increase only by only 21 grants, from 9,827 in FY 2003 to 9,848 in 2004.
Although bio-defense is the main arena where increases will occur, the administration has proposed $35 million in new research funds for research related to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni’s “NIH Roadmap.” This is a strategy that resulted from consultations held in August 2002 with members of the intramural and extramural communities. In these meetings the new director sought to determine how best to move the NIH forward in the post-doubling era. Zerhouni will channel funds provided under the Roadmap initiative to various NIH institutes to support projects that will further the priorities, including new pathways to discovery; multidisciplinary research teams of the future; and re-engineering the clinical research enterprise.
The administration’s proposed increase is considerably below what was recommended by FASEB and other advocacy groups such as the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. These advocates expressed appreciation to Congress and the Administration for completing the doubling and the strong commitment to medical research that it represents. At the same time, they recommend a 10% increase in NIH funding for FY 2004 to make optimum use of the research opportunities and capabilities that have been built up through this effort.
Concerns have been expressed that a minimal increase, such as the one proposed by the administration, runs the risk of negating the positive impacts of the doubling effort. “Recent increases in the NIH budget have given rise to an accelerated rate of discovery,” said FASEB President Steven L. Teitelbaum. “If these increases are followed by a period of flat funding, our historic opportunity to quicken the pace of medical progress will have been squandered.”
Another area of concern is the fact that the 7.5% increase for research was partially funded by diverting resources from other NIH programs, such as training. The administration has proposed a training budget of $716 million in FY 2004. This would amount to an increase of approximately $27 million or 4% over the FY 2003 level. The number of trainees would increase by 183 for a total of 17,197 trainees. Trainee stipends, however, would increase only 4%. In March 2001, NIH announced a plan to raise stipends by approximately 10% per year over the next several years. The goal of this plan was to raise the entry-level post-doctoral stipend to $45,000 to offset the cost of living during the training period.
National Science Foundation: The President proposed $5.48 billion for the NSF in FY 2004, a 3.2% increase over the final FY 2003 funding level of $5.34 billion. This falls well short of the $6.39 billion that would be needed to bring about a five-year doubling of the NSF budget, an ambitious goal that both the administration and the Congress endorsed in an NSF reauthorization bill that the president signed in December 2002. FASEB recommended the $6.39 billion recommendation for NSF in FY 2004 as part of its consensus conference on biomedical research funding. The Coalition for National Science Funding also recommended $6.39 billion in FY 2004 as part of a five-year doubling.
Under the FY 2004 proposal, NSF would fund an estimated 7,020 grants, and the average NSF grant would rise to $128,000. NSF would also increase trainee stipends to $30,000 as part of its ongoing effort to improve trainee compensation.
The Research and Related Activities budget at the NSF would rise just $30 million in FY 2004, which amounts to about half a percent above the FY 2003 appropriation. The president recommended $562 million for the biological sciences directorate, which is actually a 1.6% decline over the FY 2003 level of $274 million.
VA Medical and Prosthetic Research: The President’s FY 2004 budget proposal includes $822 million for medical and prosthetic research. However, more than half that total - $414 million – consists of funds transferred from the medical care budget.
Some $408 million of the $822 requested is intended for “medical research,” and is designated for areas that have previously been funded through the medical and prosthetic research program. The remaining $414 million is described as “medical research support” and would provide funding for the time clinicians spend on research activities as well as facility utility costs associated with laboratory space; human resources, and fiscal services. This change will make it easier for VA clinician scientists to devote time to research.
The FASEB Consensus Conference and the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research (FOVA) recommended an FY 2004 funding level of $913 million. This total would include $460 million for direct medical research costs plus $453 million for medical research support costs.
NASA Biological Research: The budget proposal for NASA was ready to be released when the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed upon reentry February 1, killing the seven astronauts aboard. The FY 2004 budget proposal for the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) was $973 million, but it is impossible to predict what priorities will emerge at the agency and what changes will ultimately be made to its budget proposal.
President Bush signed a law to provide funding for government agencies on February 20, 2003, nearly four and a half months into the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2002. Congress approved the conference agreement on February 13, some ten days after the President’s FY 2004 budget proposals were sent to Congress. The omnibus spending bill provided $398 billion to fund agencies covered by 11 of the 13 regular appropriations bills. Highlights of this legislation are listed below.
National Institutes of Health: The legislation appropriated $27.159 billion for the NIH in FY 2003. This is a 16% increase over FY 2002 and is only $10.1 million below the Presidents original FY 2003 budget request, which would have completed the effort to double the NIH budget over five years.
“This is an historic moment in biomedical research history,” according to APS Executive Director Martin Frank. “With this achievement, Congress has helped to open the door to progress which will pay enormous health dividends for this and many generations to come.”
However, the fine print of the funding bill reveals a slightly different story. Because the bill as a whole was too costly, Congress mandated a reduction of .65% from most programs. The legislation also requires various transfers to and from NIH for programs ranging from combating AIDS internationally to environmental health research. The bottom line is that the NIH program level in FY 2003 will be $26.45 billion.
National Science Foundation: NSF will receive an 11.6% increase in FY 2003. Its total budget will be $5.3 billion, which is $555 million more than its FY 2002 funding level. Included in this are:
In October 2002, the APS sent a letter to members of the Senate VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee urging them to support funding levels for the NSF biological sciences directorate (BIO) at a level comparable to other directorates within the agency. The BIO directorate will receive a 13.1% increase in FY 2003, which is in line with the funding provided for other NSF directorates.
VA Medical and Prosthetic Research: VA medical and prosthetics research will be funded at $400 million in FY 2003. This represents a $29 million or 7.8% increase over FY 2002.
NASA Biological Research: The omnibus legislation provided NASA with $15.39 billion, in FY 2003, an increase of $498 million or 2.7% over its FY 2002 funding levels. Within NASA, the Office of Biological and Space Research (OBPR) received $863 – an increase of $149 million or 20.9% over FY 2002.
|
Seeking to increase public awareness about the benefits that animal research provides to animals, the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) has launched an innovative advertising campaign called “Survivors.” The campaign features animals that have survived serious illnesses due to advanced medical treatments. FBR has also created a short television ad dramatizing the same message. In February, FBR sought to place posters with portraits of dogs and cats who are “Survivors” on display at 31 shopping malls around the country. However, while 27 malls accepted the posters, four malls in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and California refused the paid ads, citing concerns that the pro-research message would draw protests. “We are deeply disappointed,” FBR President Frankie Trull said in a statement on the FBR website. “It is our hope that 'Survivors' will inspire public understanding and support for America's biomedical research community by giving animals a voice in this debate.” “All across America, threats of harassment by animal extremists are increasing,” Ms. Trull said “Sadly, these threats are working.” |
The Foundation for Biomedical Research has created this appealing poster to illustrate the fact that millions of pets have benefited from biomedical research involving animals. |
Information about the contributions of animal research to animal health is
available on the FBR website at http://www.fbresearch.org/survivors/index.htm.
An essay there explains, “For years, there was basically one way to treat
sick pets: Put them to sleep. But today they can live happy, long lives.”
The essay goes on to say:
“Many people believe that research with animals is conducted for the exclusive
benefit of humans. In fact, practically all biomedical research with lab animals
also advances veterinary medicine and helps companion animals live longer, happier
and healthier lives. Dozens of diseases, affecting both humans and animals,
are prevented through the administration of vaccines. Many other conditions
are successfully treated, in both humans and animals, with antibiotics. From
asthma and epilepsy, from high blood pressure to cancer, people and their pets
share myriad diseases and therapies. And thanks to animal research, effective
new drugs have been designed, sophisticated medical devices have been developed
and remarkable surgical procedures have been perfected - for human and veterinary
medical care.”
A television ad developed to convey the “Survivors” message shows
an older man walking his dog in the park. The dog playfully pulls his owner
along while the voiceover says:
“Not long ago, Albert couldn't take long walks. He was diagnosed with a bad heart. After considering all the treatment options, his heart specialist recommended a pacemaker.”
At this point, the owner is sitting on a park bench, and the camera zooms in on the dog's face. The announcer then says:
“Instead of putting him to sleep.”
On February 27, 2003 the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This legislation, sponsored by Reps. David Weldon (R-FL) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), would criminalize all forms of cloning. The measure would apply both to reproductive cloning and to somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology, also known as therapeutic cloning. The measure passed by a vote of 241 to 155.
Biomedical research supporters had urge Congress to enact a different bill sponsored by Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA). The Greenwood bill would have outlawed only reproductive cloning while allowing therapeutic cloning for medical research purposes to continue. It was defeated by a vote of 231-174.
The dispute over cloning now moves to the Senate, where Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have re-introduced their bill, now known as the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This measure, S.245, would make criminalize both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
Research advocates support a different bill sponsored by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (S. 305) is similar to the Greenwood bill and aims to prohibit reproductive cloning while protecting important areas of medical research, including stem cell research.
Return to The Physiologist Table of Contents
