By Rosalind Mott, PhD
This
article was originally published in the Penn Biomed Postdoctoral Council Newsletter (Spring 2015).
Historically, the NIH has received straightforward bipartisan
support; in particular, the doubling of the NIH budget from FY98-03 led to a
rapid growth in university based research. Unfortunately, ever since 2003,
inflation has been slowly eating away at the doubling effort (Figure 1). There
seems little hope for recovery other than the brief restoration in 2009 by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Making matters worse, Congress now
has an abysmal record of moving policy through as bipartisan fighting dominates
the Hill.
 |
| Fig 1: The slow erosion of the NIH budget over the past decade (figure adapted from: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43341.pdf) |
Currently, support directed to the NIH is a mere 0.79% of
federal discretionary spending. The bulk of this funding goes directly to
extramural research, providing salaries for over 300,000 scientists across 2500
universities. As the majority of
biomedical researchers rely on government funding, it behooves these unique
constituents to rally for sustainable support from Congress. Along with other
scientists across the country who are becoming more politically involved, the Penn Science Policy Group arranged for a Congressional Visit Day (CVD)
in which a small group of post doctoral researchers and graduate students visited
Capitol Hill on March 18th to remind the House and Senate that
scientific research is a cornerstone to the US economy and to alert them to the
impact of the erosion on young researchers.
Led by post-docs Shaun O’Brien and Caleph Wilson, the group
partnered with the National Science
Policy Group (NSPG), a coalition of young scientists across the nation, to
make over 60 visits to Congressional staff. NSPG leaders from other parts of
the country, Alison Leaf (UCSF) and Sam Brinton (Third Way, Wash. DC), arranged
for a productive experience in which newcomers to the Hill trained for their
meetings. The Science Coalition (TSC) provided
advice on how to effectively communicate with politicians: keep the message
clear and simple, provide them with evidence of how science positively impacts
society and the economy, and tell personal stories of how budget-cuts are
affecting your research. TSC pointed out the undeniable fact that face to face
meetings with Congress are the most effective way to communicate our needs as
scientists. With the announcement of President Obama’s FY16 budget request in
February, the House and Senate are in the midst of the appropriations season,
so it was no better time to remind them of just how important the funding
mechanism is.
Meeting with the offices of Pennsylvania senators, Pat
Toomey and Bob Casey, and representatives, Glenn Thompson and Chaka Fattah were
key goals, but the meetings were extended to reach out to the states where the young
scientists were born and raised – everywhere from Delaware to California. Each
meeting was fifteen to twenty minutes of rapid discussion of the importance of
federally funded basic research. At the end of the day, bipartisan support for
the NIH was found to exist at the government’s core, but the hotly debated
topic of how to fund the system has stalled its growth.
Shaun O’Brien recaps a disappointing experience in basic
requests made to Senator Toomey. Sen. Toomey has slowly shifted his stance to
be more supportive of the NIH, so meeting with his office was an important step
in reaching the Republicans:
We mentioned the "Dear Colleague"
letter by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) that is asking
budget appropriators to "give strong financial support for the NIH in the
FY2016 budget". Sen. Toomey didn't sign onto it last year, especially as
that letter asked for an increase in NIH funding to $31-32 billion and would
have violated the sequester caps-which Sen. Toomey paints as a necessary evil
to keep Washington spending in check. I asked the staffer for his thoughts on
this year's letter, especially as it has no specific dollar figure and Sen.
Toomey has stated his support for basic science research. The staffer said he
would pass it along to Sen. Toomey and let him know about this letter.
Unfortunately, three weeks later, Sen. Toomey
missed an opportunity to show his "newfound" support for science
research as he declined to sign a letter that essentially supports the mission
of the NIH. I plan to call his office and see if I can get an explanation
for why he failed to support this letter, especially as I thought it wouldn't
have any political liability for him to sign.
Working with Congressman Chaka Fattah balanced the
disappointment from Toomey with a spark of optimism. Rep. Fattah, a strong
science supporter and member of the House Appropriations Committee, encourages
scientists to implement twitter (tweet @chakafattah) to keep him posted on recent success
stories and breakthroughs; these bits of information are useful tools in
arguing the importance of basic research to other politicians.
Keeping those lines of communication strong is the most
valuable role that we can play away from the lab. Walking through the Russell Senate Office
building, a glimpse of John McCain waiting for the elevator made the day
surreal, removed from the normalcy of another day at the bench. The reality
though is that our future as productive scientists is gravely dependent upon
public opinion and in turn, government support. The simple act of outreach to
the public and politicians is a common duty for all scientists alike whether it
be through trips to the Hill or simple dinner conversations with our
non-scientist friends.
Participants represented
either their professional society and/or the National Science Policy Group,
independent from their university affiliations. Support for the training and
experience was provided by both the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
(Cambridge, MA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS of Washington, DC).