I don't know about the meaning of is. However in cancer research we do lead
the world and on less money. I know that from my previous life working in a
cancer hospital and listening to the researches talk.

Harold L. Jones wrote:

> THE WALL STREET JOURNAL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999
>
> Clinton Strikes Out on Health Research
> The president's budget this week boasts of the Clinton commitment to
> biomedical research by generously funding
> the National Institutes of Health budget.
> It "renews the commitment" that the president made to vastly expanding
> biomedical research. This funding, the
> administration notes, has "made the United States the world leader in
> medical research."
> If you buy that rhetoric then you can accept the president's definition
> of "is"-as
>
> i
> Politics & People
>
> L By Albert R. Hunt
> in there "is no sexual affair" -or "alone" -as in whether he was "alone"
> while having oral sex.
> The truth is the president has beaten an unconscionable retreat in his
> NIH budget. last year, prodded by outside
> gr~oups like Research America, a bipartisan group of legislators
> committed themselves to doubling the
> health-research budget over the next five years. The first installment
> was a 15% hike to $15.1 billion for the current
> fiscal year. In signing that legislation, the president praised it as a
> "critical downpayment" for his 21st-century
> research fund for America, and while he proposed a 50% hike over five
> years, he indicated support for doubling that
> budget.
> In the 2000 budget, however, he seeks only a 2% increase, not even
> enough to keep pace with inflation; this
> would be the smallest Increase in the NIH budget this decade.
> Health-research experts say this budget would stifle
> the NIH's momentum, lessen the prospects for major breakthroughs in the
> next decade, leave scores of promising
> grant proposals unfulfilled and discourage bright young
> from entering the biomedical research  short period of time. As a
> general rule, fiel -                              that's a
> legitimate concern, though it
> The proposed NIH budget signals "a  rarely bothers politicians when
> they're cease fire in the war agajnst cancer,
> rushing to fund highway spending or a Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other
> dis-  pork-laden defense projects.
> eases," complains Sen. Connie Mack (R.,     But in the case of NIH,
> these fears are Fla.). In a rare agreement with his
> conser-  unfounded. Most of the grant applications, vative colleague,
> j)emocrat Tom Harkin of  according to
> peer-review participants, are Iowa calls the Clinton proposal "corn-
> worthy. Yet through most of this decade, pletely
> inadequate to fund potential new  only a about a quarter were funded;
> with breakthroughs."                      increased
> appropriations, that level has
> The president is playing a political me. The day after his budget was
> released, he met privately in Boston with
> Ted Kennedy and several health-research advocates and, defensively,
> explained that other than tax cuts and defense
> spending the NIH is the only area where sufficient Republicans support
> generous increases Thus, he suggested, the
> research money would ultimately be there anyway. The problem is that
> last year he sought an 8.5~ raise and the end
> result was almost 15% With the president comlng in so low this year, it
> may be very hard to ratchet it up another
> 15% hike.
> Moreover, this administration's rhet oric on research invariably exceeds
> its commitment. In health research,
> payoffs are longer term. The most appreciative constituencies are those
> that benefit from discoveries which usually
> are years away.
> Medical scientists charge this is an especially bad time to be stingy.
> "This is one of the unique moments in
> biomedical research where we're on the verge of exciting developments,"
> says Dr. William Brinkley, head of a
> federation of medical biologists and Vice President of Graduate Sciences
> at the Baylor College of Medicine. The only
> catalyst for these advances are NIH grants.
> Some conservatives and even experienced lawmakers like Pete Domenici
> question whether the NIH can
> efficiently absorb massively higher expenditures in a
> risen to slightly over 30%. Experts insist it is very easy to maintain
> high quality at those rates.
> John Porter, an Illinois Repubilcan congressman, who chairs the House
> Appropriations subcommittee dealing
> with NIH, says that based on extensive research, there is "resounding"
> evidence the money would be spent wisely.
> But under the Clinton budget, he estimates some 1,500 proposed grants
> from medical centers around the country will
> be denied. More than a few researchers with existing grants wouldn't be
> able to cover inflationary adjustments. And
> the cutbacks would be a disincentive to young scientists to get into
> this field.
> Potential breakthroughs are real. Re-
> searchers in the areas of cancer, diabetes and AIDS, where extraordinary
> progress has been made, see bigger
> possibilities on the horizon. In brain-related areas, the Charles A.
> Dana Foundation forecasts "major advances" in
> treating Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease and
> Parkinson's, as well as the development of new
> drugs for strokes and spinal cord injuries. It's a good bet that more
> than a few of any advances will emanate from NIH
> grants.
> These are real investments. A major Duke University study a few years
> ago
>
> dm(~~i?nIgstmraat;~r ~ among the elderly If that trend accelerates, the
> potenh.ai savings in Medicare costs are
> substantial.
>
> ~ I;~~acrtMhaesti;veeasrtn~nldt. ~ ~ bw%hsindhetha~An~eer(~raanl
>
> spending on basic medical and spience research: "By the end of the 199O~
> America will have added fl million ne~
> jobs while
> the European Union, with        e third more
> population will have    he
> said. "We have the same savings rate, the same education levels and It's
> not that we're smarter; our advantage is that
> America makes the Investment in basic science."
> A federal budget, with all its limitations and flaws, is a partial
> roadmap of a society's priorities. A number of Mr.
> Clinton's initiatives-the efforts to deal with Social Security, funding
> for more teachers-are laudable; arguably too there
> Is a case for some tax cuts in this booming econom~ Ut none are more
> important than conti~~mg a major and bold
> effort to fund research for medical breakthroughs that will make us a
> much healthier and more productive society.
> Here the Clinton b~dget fails miserably.