According to the Post, "the Bush Administration’s plan to cut the deficit in half within five years envisions an unprecedented long-term spending clamp-down that would continue well beyond 2005 for hundreds of popular domestic programs, according to an unpublished White House budget document. A 999-page Office of Management and Budget computer printout suggests that low-income education programs, medical research at the National Institutes of Health, grants to local law enforcement agencies, job training and other popular programs could be subject to freezes or cuts at least through 2009." (emphasis added)

Whether this plan becomes the law of the land, resulting in incalculable damage to the extraordinary research infra-structure of this country, depends very much on who decides our nation’s budget priorities in the foreseeable future. If there were ever a time to get out and vote, contact your Congressperson, write letters to your local newspaper’s editors, and advocate however you can – frequently and loudly – for the important work that we all do, that time is now.

Many of us remember the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the R01 payline at many NIH institutes was about 12% or less. Those were horrible times from which it took years to recover. And how many young scientists were deterred from pursuing careers in research will never be known.

Whether we are about to re-enter that era is a serious and worrisome question. The Washington Post article reports that there is considerable debate as to whether these "computer-generated estimates" are a true indication of the Administration’s intent or "simply a device enabling the president to claim that he has a plan to rein in the deficit…." But the "handwriting on the wall" for NIH is clear: as the only federal agency whose budget has doubled in recent years, NIH is perceived as able to "afford" cuts or lack of growth in order to direct the meager domestic discretionary funds (those funds which pay for everything except federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare) that are available to Administration priorities such as tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan reconstruction.

Whether Congress will share these priorities or allow the elimination or dismantling of many important programs, including those at NIH, will depend in part on how active we all are in articulating our important message: federal funds devoted to biomedical research save lives, prevent suffering, and preserve our nation’s preeminent role in biomedical research and development. With our Senate office buildings closed at this writing because of ricin discovered in the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and no treatment available for any who came into contact with it, one might think that the benefits of biomedical research are obvious in our war on terrorism. And indeed, considerable funds are being allocated specifically for biodefense research; but this is a band-aid approach that fails to acknowledge the crucial importance of basic research and basic biology as tools to protect people from – and treat victims of – both man-made and natural bioterror agents.

Despite the obvious benefits of – and urgent need for – biomedical research, the President’s recently released budget for FY 2005 proposes a paltry increase of $729 million (a 2.6% increase), for a total budget of $28.757 billion. Of that nearly $28.8 billion, $1.7 billion is directed to biodefense research (an increase of 7.5%, or $121 million over FY 2004). In addition, $237 million is directed to the NIH Roadmap initiative, an increase of $109 million over FY 2004.

Against this big-budget picture is the world in which we, as scientists, must operate. The federal budget dictates this as well. The NIH budget for FY 2005 projects an increase of 258 awards (10,393 awards, comparable to the projected total for FY 2003) following a projected decline of 258 awards in FY 2004. It also projects an aggregate increase of 1.3% in average cost for RPGs: a 1.9% increase for noncompeting awards and a 1.0% increase for competing awards. There is no increase for NRSA stipends, although the budget does propose to increase the number of full time training positions by 225. These miniscule increases paint a bleak picture indeed for those of us running labs, as well as for those seeking to begin their own research careers.