 |
 |
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.