IMportant: Please read and contact your Congresional reps. and senators.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research"
        <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 7 Jan 2003 17:53:55 -0500
Subject: NIH FUNDING IN JEOPARDY

Urgent!  Action Alert

NIH FUNDING IN JEOPARDY
CALL/FAX YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS & THE WHITE HOUSE

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Urges You to Visit
http://www.capitolconnect.com/fundnihnow
and Take Action In Support of
Completing the Doubling of the NIH Budget in FY 2003

The annual National Institutes of Health budget will be in jeopardy when
Congress returns to Washington, D.C. this week. Congress is under strict
orders from the White House to reduce spending on several of the pending
FY 2003 spending bills. The bill that funds the National Institutes of
Health -- the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations bill (bill numbers H.R 5320 and S. 2766) -- is expected to
take a particular hit. With this reduction, it is questionable whether
Congress will be able to provide the $27.3 billion needed to complete the
fifth and final year of the bipartisan commitment to double the NIH
budget by FY 2003. A shortfall in funding could negatively impact the
progress on embryonic stem cell research.

The House and Senate Leadership and the Administration have expressed a
strong desire to complete the doubling of the NIH budget in the FY 2003
appropriations bill. However, given the spending limits and strong
interest to protect other programs, the NIH funding remains a target.
Also, since the proposed budget increases for the NIH in FY 2004 are
expected to be very minimal at best, the chance of completing the
doubling in the next appropriations cycle will be even more challenging.

Hundreds of patient, medical and health groups are joining together this
week to have a massive call to action to support NIH funding.  We ask
that you use the website http://www.capitolconnect.com/fundnihnow and
call and fax your House and Senate Members this week.

·             Urge them to support $27.3 billion in funding for the NIH,
which will complete Congress’ promise to double the NIH budget by FY
2003;

·             Ask your Members to urge the Congressional leadership to
fulfill this commitment to medical research and to finish the FY 2003
appropriations process as quickly as possible; and

·             Explain to them that a shortfall in the NIH could
negatively impact the progress on stem cell research and why this is
important to you.

We also ask that you contact the White House at (202) 456-1111:

·             Thank the President for his commitment to complete the NIH
doubling effort this year; and

·             Urge him to make sure it gets done.

Draft letters and contact information for individual Members can be found
at the website http://www.capitolconnect.com/fundnihnow.

We sincerely thank you for your help with this critical effort to
complete the doubling of the NIH budget this year so that the NIH has
adequate funds to continue the many exciting opportunities in embryonic
stem cell research.

The following article regarding NIH funding appeared in the Wall Street
Journal today, January 7, 2003.

POLITICS AND POLICY

Defense Priorities, Tax Cuts Threaten NIH Research Funds

By CHRIS ADAMS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- The party might be over for the National Institutes of
Health
Over the past five years, the biomedical-research facility in nearby
Bethesda, Md., has benefited from an extraordinary flow of new money,
thanks to bipartisan support from Congress and the White House. If
Congress approves President Bush's pending NIH request for the 2003
fiscal year, its budget would be more than $27 billion -- double the 1998
level.

But now that gusher may be almost tapped out. Some research advocates are
worried that Congress, faced with a worsening fiscal outlook, won't be
able to meet the $27 billion request. What's more, the White House's 2004
budget -- due to be released next month -- is likely to propose sharp
constraints on domestic programs in order to fund its top priorities:
defense and homeland-security initiatives and tax cuts. People familiar
with the preliminary budget numbers say the NIH, which has enjoyed annual
budget increases of 15% during recent years, might only get a tiny raise
under the president's 2004 blueprint.

Such tightening of the purse strings is provoking protests from patient
and research advocates. "We find it almost inconceivable that there could
be this commitment by the administration and Congress to double the
budget and then have these devastating cutbacks," says Myrl Weinberg,
president of the National Health Council, which is made up of more than
100 health groups. Her group is among those planning letter-writing
campaigns and congressional visits to push for higher spending.
While acknowledging that future NIH budget increases won't be as fat as
those of the recent past, research advocates say funding increases still
need to be substantial -- say, 8% to 10% a year -- to capitalize on the
progress being made in biomedical research. This week, patient-group
representatives will gather at a Virginia conference center to plot a
grassroots lobbying campaign to ensure that Congress meets the "doubling"
goal this year and approves a sizable funding increase for next year.

One certain ally: Sen. Arlen Specter, expected to be chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee that handles the NIH budget. The Pennsylvania
Republican has introduced a resolution to triple the NIH budget from 1998
levels, thus reaching $41 billion, and requiring annual increases of 8.5%
over the next several years.

For almost two years, the Bush administration has been warning that the
NIH gravy train can't go on forever. In releasing its budget for the 2002
fiscal year, the administration said that "once the doubling effort is
complete, NIH will receive stable, moderate funding increases." The
administration also noted that the big infusion of cash had created
"management challenges" for the institutes. It highlighted the NIH's
bookkeeping, saying its decentralized and non-standard accounting
processes resulted in numerous errors" in financial statements.

Some people agree that the NIH might not be worthy of major increases
right now. "The NIH should start digesting what it has already eaten,"
says Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. Adds Rudolph Penner, a senior
fellow at the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional
Budget Office: "No matter how valid the cause, when you get increases of
that magnitude, you have to worry about how effectively the extra money
can be used. A pause would seem to be very well justified."

Even officials of the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries, while
happy to see the NIH get big increases -- after all, its discoveries
often end up as drugs -- privately say they would like the chronically
underfunded Food and Drug Administration, which needs more people to
quickly process the drug industry's applications, to get some of the
largess.

Researchers are aghast at the notion of pausing the NIH's rapidly
escalating budget, saying it would cause chaos in the scientific
community. Typically, NIH grants are awarded for five years; a grant made
this year is really a commitment for several years from now. A flat
budget could force the NIH to choose between reneging on promises made
for many long-term grants or awarding almost no new grants. Cutting back
on existing grants would be a direct hit on universities, which often
build new labs based on NIH promises. Scaling back new grants could
squelch young biomedical-research careers right at a time when decoding
of the human genome promises huge breakthroughs.

The NIH, spread over 300 acres northwest of Washington, is a collection
of more than two dozen facilities dedicated to researching cancer, heart
disease, the human genome, mental illness and other biomedical issues.
Funding for the agency stagnated in the mid-1990s at about $11 billion a
year, prompting an outcry from patient groups, which saw research
opportunities being frittered away, and from scientists who couldn't get
new grants -- or even have their old ones renewed.

The success rate of scientists applying for NIH grants dropped to 25%,
and was even lower for new researchers. It was, says former NIH director
Harold Varmus, "an intolerable risk to the system." Universities couldn't
count on receiving an acceptable number of grants to keep research labs
up to date, and potential scientists couldn't get a toehold to start
their careers. Many veered away from the research life.

"Why would bright young people want to stake their lives on a crapshoot?"
says David Korn, a senior vice president for the Association of American
Medical Colleges.



But in 1998, research advocates and sympathetic lawmakers pressed for a
doubling of the NIH budget within five years. Patient after patient went
to Capitol Hill, pressing their causes; members of Congress recounted
their own stories of family members killed by cancer or heart disease. In
addition, the NIH made sure lawmakers knew its funding was spread around
the country; it compiles an exhaustive list of grant dollars broken down
by state and congressional district.

Led by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Varmus -- known for his deft advocacy on
Capitol Hill -- the NIH began getting 15% annual funding increases. In
his budgets, Mr. Bush also signed off on the doubling effort.
Up from the lows of the mid-1990s, the NIH now funds 30% of its grant
applications -- an appropriate level, says Dr. Varmus, currently
president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He and
other NIH backers say the fact that two-thirds of applications are still
denied funding is proof that the institutes can easily absorb new
increases.

Sen Tom Harkin of Iowa, the top Democrat on the NIH appropriations
subcommittee, agrees. He wants to see the work of the past half-decade
continue "Sen. Specter and I have worked together for a long time to
double the NIH budget, and we are just about there," he says. "But our
intention was never to fulfill that commitment and then let the funding
fall off a cliff."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn