All --Come support the March for Science, April 22d (Earth Day) whether in Washington, DC or a satellite location (www.marchforscience.com). While science alone shouldn't dictate policy, why wouldn't we want the best knowledge informing our policy. With today's rapid technology growth, the amazing leaps in medicine as interdisciplinary tools coalesce, it is unconscionable that our President doesn't have the advise of a qualified science advisor. Again, we can certainly push off long term challenges for near term gain, but let's do it because we KNOW we are doing it and that we UNDERSTAND the costs down the road. Not because it is politically easy.
18
My husband died from pancreatic cancer 31 days after diagnosis at age 51. Pancreatic cancer is a disease that is killing increasing numbers of people, but gets woefully little money for research. Patients given this diagnosis have little to hope for as the prognosis has changed little in over 3,000 years. Asking a private foundation to take on research, without help from the NIH, is an impossible task. Young researchers will not be drawn to a disease which may suffer from inconsistent funding or no funding. I have no doubt that cancer will be with us for a very long time. But that is no excuse to strip funding from important work.
20
Reagan cut public health funds which enabled AIDS to spin out of control.
16
My first few years of employment, as a newly graduated biostatistician, was funded by NIH grants. It's hard to communicate to people outside of University Medical research, just how tough an existence this is.
Studies that are accepted for funding by the NIH, are seldom fully funded, so the principal researchers spend a large percentage of their time securing additional grants. The lower level staff members on these projects all get hired on a part time basis, so that the University does not have to pay health care, vacation, and benefits. That's why I left after several years.
I also left, in part, because many of the Research Doctors (Post Docs) had to take on work from outside companies, in Big Pharma, to pay down their loans for their education. A few were lured off, to full time jobs in Pharma. This, in my experience, compromised their integrity and professionalism.
Congress has reduced the budget for NIH to fund US medical research for decades, and the result is a shift from medical discovery in the public domain (University labs) to private, for profit companies. Companies that withhold their research information, for commercial gain, making medical research as, a whole, less efficient, and the resulting drugs and treatments more expensive.
Studies that are accepted for funding by the NIH, are seldom fully funded, so the principal researchers spend a large percentage of their time securing additional grants. The lower level staff members on these projects all get hired on a part time basis, so that the University does not have to pay health care, vacation, and benefits. That's why I left after several years.
I also left, in part, because many of the Research Doctors (Post Docs) had to take on work from outside companies, in Big Pharma, to pay down their loans for their education. A few were lured off, to full time jobs in Pharma. This, in my experience, compromised their integrity and professionalism.
Congress has reduced the budget for NIH to fund US medical research for decades, and the result is a shift from medical discovery in the public domain (University labs) to private, for profit companies. Companies that withhold their research information, for commercial gain, making medical research as, a whole, less efficient, and the resulting drugs and treatments more expensive.
15
Guns take priority over labs and research
Fighter jets over vaccines
You see where this leads, war and death. That is what our president wants.
I've worked with faculty on NIH funded grants for 15+ years. Most, I say most, are underpaid and overworked. The competitiveness for these research grants is already unbelievable and many excellent scientists, (PhD, MD,, etc) with great passion for advancing medicine and health, have left the field because of a lack of funding opportunities and the ability to secure funding.
Largest defense budget in the world.
Most firearm related homicides of developed countries.
You see where political priorities are.
Fighter jets over vaccines
You see where this leads, war and death. That is what our president wants.
I've worked with faculty on NIH funded grants for 15+ years. Most, I say most, are underpaid and overworked. The competitiveness for these research grants is already unbelievable and many excellent scientists, (PhD, MD,, etc) with great passion for advancing medicine and health, have left the field because of a lack of funding opportunities and the ability to secure funding.
Largest defense budget in the world.
Most firearm related homicides of developed countries.
You see where political priorities are.
33
My wife is funded by NIH research grants. And we couldn't care less about the proposed budget cuts. We're done with science. Maybe if the private sector funded research exclusively then America would care more about science and scientists. For all those who call Trump ignorant and stupid, what do you call a society who pays NIH funded researchers the same or less than public school teachers, except without the summers off and the short work days? The fact is America hasn't been a leader in science for a very long time. If you have a son or daughter would you want them to be researcher? The pay is horrible, the hours long, you get almost no recognition and worst of all no will even show you the respect of calling you doctor. If you're interested in academic science as a career avoid it. There's a reason why the US has to import scientist from around the world.
10
Wonder what Trump would say if he was diagnosed with a rare and possibly fatal form of cancer? Or the same happen to his family members? He and they would want to know there is something that could help. I had Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma last year at 82 and very grateful for all the medical and scientific treatments/help that got me to remission, including a terrific oncologist and good doctors.
12
I have directly benefited from NIH grants as they provided funds to allow me to do my graduate work in the area of human genetics. Without them I would not have the job I have today. NIH grants provide funds to make fundamental discoveries in biomedical science that can benefit society as a whole. They also provide training for the biomedical workforce that help create high paying jobs and tax revenue.
12
I read once where a scientist was bemoaning China's enlarging presence in medical research. "How can we compete with over One Billion Chinese" he lamented to his friend. "Don't worry," the other scientist replied. "America draws its scientists from over Seven Billion people (meaning the world)."
Trump is well on his way to destroying America's historic place as the 'Mecca' of medical research. His budget reflects the times of Ronald Reagan, not today's world. The only question is when will the Republicans in Congress realize that standing up to Trump is the only way they can avoid a huge defeat in the next elections.
Trump is well on his way to destroying America's historic place as the 'Mecca' of medical research. His budget reflects the times of Ronald Reagan, not today's world. The only question is when will the Republicans in Congress realize that standing up to Trump is the only way they can avoid a huge defeat in the next elections.
23
The author states "As I have learned from my own time at the N.I.H., this is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma."
But, you see, that is the problem. So many Republicans reject fact-based science. Look who denies climate change in their party platform? Look who lambasted President Obama for fighting the ebola crisis at its origin?
But, you see, that is the problem. So many Republicans reject fact-based science. Look who denies climate change in their party platform? Look who lambasted President Obama for fighting the ebola crisis at its origin?
18
One big virtue of free societies is the free exchange of information. While some people think that knowledge is power and having secret knowledge gives advantages in a competitive society, most thoughtful people understand that more knowledge is to be gained by sharing than can be acquired by an one individual. Programs that enable basic research for the sake of new understanding and more reliable knowledge about how the natural world works are engines of both knowledge accumulation and distribution and of the means to discover new way of meeting human needs. The conservative mind set is focused upon preserving what has been acquired and the ways that enabled that acquisition not extending the capabilities and achievements of humanity.
6
Many of the best minds go into companies funded by defense spending. Are priorities still seem to be on finding out ways to kill life, rather than save life.
7
Carrying a flag of frugality, the Trumpists demand a smaller government without thinking through the consequences of massive budget cuts. They insist that less spending, lower taxes, and a reduced deficit are our golden path into the future. It is the only value they honor.
With that in mind, Trump and his Republican colleagues in the Congress plan to reduce many of his administrative departments into skeletons of themselves, unable to maintain even basic services or enforce the areas of our lives they are designed to protect. OSHA, the EPA, HUD, N.I.H,, the FDA and FCC and many others will be slashed and disabled ending decades of work for the American people.
None of this will make America great in any way. It will only make it more likely that valualbe research will not get done. Ignorance and illegality will increase. Poor people will see more suffering. All of the money "saved" will go into the pockets of wealthy "stake holds" and special interests, or be rededicated to building more, and more, and more bombs and other weapons of mass destruction (as if we weren't already the biggest holder of these means of destruction than any other nation on earth).
Trump's thinking is paranoid, short sighted, and stupid in these matters. He needs to be stopped. Congress needs to act now to impeach and try him for his actions utilizing Russian operatives to gain the White House. This man is a traitor.
With that in mind, Trump and his Republican colleagues in the Congress plan to reduce many of his administrative departments into skeletons of themselves, unable to maintain even basic services or enforce the areas of our lives they are designed to protect. OSHA, the EPA, HUD, N.I.H,, the FDA and FCC and many others will be slashed and disabled ending decades of work for the American people.
None of this will make America great in any way. It will only make it more likely that valualbe research will not get done. Ignorance and illegality will increase. Poor people will see more suffering. All of the money "saved" will go into the pockets of wealthy "stake holds" and special interests, or be rededicated to building more, and more, and more bombs and other weapons of mass destruction (as if we weren't already the biggest holder of these means of destruction than any other nation on earth).
Trump's thinking is paranoid, short sighted, and stupid in these matters. He needs to be stopped. Congress needs to act now to impeach and try him for his actions utilizing Russian operatives to gain the White House. This man is a traitor.
23
Prof. Varmus, you need to get on Fox News to deliver this message. President Trump does not read NYT (I should put the period goes after read). Or you could tweet it. Understanding the underlying biology of diseases in one of the most complex systems is a daunting task. Without this understanding no new drugs, and cures are possible. Health care costs will increase without innovation and more needless deaths. We MAY need soldiers and weapons to sustain our power, but we will need healthy people to sustain our power, for sure. Investing in healthcare is a national security issue as well.
14
Trump is just cutting programs because he needs to cut funding to pay for the increase in defense and border defense spending. To conservatives all spending intended to improve human understanding should be spent by private individuals using private sources of funding, so programs like the N.I.H. are superfluous. If research is needed then the industries that need that knowledge ought to fund it and when they get it they can recoup their costs in the prices of their products and by charging everyone who wants the knowledge fees to obtain it from them.
1
Cuts to food programs, kicking millions off healthcare, decimating the environment, gutting education and voting rights, slashing public health and the NIH. It suddenly occurred to me who Trumps band of nihilistic, mean spirited, soulless sycophants call to mind. The Death Eaters in the Harry Potter books. ""They were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty."
7
Every funded group will complain if and when the cuts hit them. Of course, someone pays for the funding and they're called taxpayers.
Taxpayers complain their taxes are too high. You cannot satisfy both sides of the fence.
Taxpayers complain their taxes are too high. You cannot satisfy both sides of the fence.
1
I doubt I am the only taxpayer willing to pay more for appropriate spending on appropriate priorities. But "the wall" is not among appropriate priorities.
22
In suggesting that " this is not about Republicans versus Democrats" you are perpetuating a well-intentioned myth that belies the reality. As the just-stolen election made abundantly clear, the majority of American voters do indeed believe in a "national leadership that connects our economic success and our security to the generation of knowledge, and to the arts and sciences, not just to our military strength".
And then there are those who prefer not to know anything that doesn't mesh with their unsubstantiated Beliefs. You might have heard of them--they flatter themselves with the term "conservative", when in fact they don't want to conserve anything--not money, or democracy, or their fellow citizens, or indeed, the planet we all live on. The ONLY thing that matters to them is their Beliefs, which they never examine, fact-check, or usually even understand. And the rest of us can't just "vote them out", obviously--these animals will go to any lengths, including collusion with a vicious enemy of our country, to cheat the process, cheat democracy, cheat the rest of us, force us all to live by their barbaric, inhuman Beliefs. And they congratulate themselves for doing so. They certainly aren't Democrats, or "liberals", or anything else but fascists. Historically, they don't play well with others.
And then there are those who prefer not to know anything that doesn't mesh with their unsubstantiated Beliefs. You might have heard of them--they flatter themselves with the term "conservative", when in fact they don't want to conserve anything--not money, or democracy, or their fellow citizens, or indeed, the planet we all live on. The ONLY thing that matters to them is their Beliefs, which they never examine, fact-check, or usually even understand. And the rest of us can't just "vote them out", obviously--these animals will go to any lengths, including collusion with a vicious enemy of our country, to cheat the process, cheat democracy, cheat the rest of us, force us all to live by their barbaric, inhuman Beliefs. And they congratulate themselves for doing so. They certainly aren't Democrats, or "liberals", or anything else but fascists. Historically, they don't play well with others.
16
One of the greatest reasons to support federally funded scientific research is that the results benefit everyone, not just the pharmaceutical industry CEO, not just the "shareholders", not just the device company president. Everyone benefits. When research is coordinated by private companies data doesn't have to be revealed, especially if there is a patent involved. We desperately need federally funded medical and scientific research. The results benefit us all.
16
In the Middle Ages (Christian) ideology held firm sway over scientific thinking. Galileo was committed to house arrest for life by the pope for asserting that the earth revolved around the sun. Trump is returning us to that time.
14
It was wonderful to see Dr. Varmus make the connection between threats to medical research and the assault on science, and even objective knowledge, that is now so pervasive. Still, this piece runs the risk of having the same irresponsible critiques lobbed at it that climate science now endures: namely, that this is a self-serving attempt to maintain the research funding stream. The medical profession has been far too reserved in speaking out about the illogical and inhumane changes being brought about by Trump and the Republicans, many of them based on poor or nonexistent scientific information. The American political dialogue would be enhanced if physicians were to better advocate, not only for their profession, but also for American scientific leadership capable of reducing the uncertainty associated with decisions made by our government, and by ourselves.
5
As a scientist who works as a consultant to startup pharmaceutical companies, I see on a daily basis how NIH funding leads to generation of businesses. The same holds true for clean energy research and all the other fields of study Trump would do away with. Walls or no walls around our borders, the rest of the world is still out there, and if we don't come up with and exploit an innovation, they will. And we will be buying from them a year or two down the road.
19
Anything that promotes science or health is suspect to someone with President Trump's mentality. Listen to him and weep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D49XA8c761o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D49XA8c761o
6
The proposed cuts to the NIH, Department of Energy, and other science departments terrify me, in part because the work these agencies do enables us to detect and respond to serious threats such as Zika virus or climate change, and in part because of the lasting repercussions they will have. This President neither understands nor cares about the long pipeline of scientific research. The precariousness of grant funding and the lengthy, expensive education one needs to become a scientist already discourage many bright young people from pursuing scientific research careers. Add serious job cuts, and even fewer will want to take the risk. Even if a more science-friendly administration is in place years down the road, the pipeline will be empty. And since we are becoming a less friendly place for immigrants, we won't be able to count on attracting scientists from abroad. This is yet another way this short-sighted administration is sowing the seeds of doom for American society in ways that will not be easily reversed.
8
If there's literally anyone out there that does not believe that Trump's agenda is to milk as much cash as it can for the proverbial "1%" then they are blind, brain dead, or already in the grave. It has already loaded it's cabinet with all the "special" interest practitioners from Wall st (most of whom should have been indicted for their practices during the junk bond crash, housing bubble, etc), and wants to destroy education (general public), scientific progress, and health care. In the next few years there is going to be the biggest gap in all history between the rich and those of us that are being turned into that group's 'proles' (slaves/servants), unless congress (lol) decides that enough is enough, but they're part of that 1%, so that's never going to happen. You voted for it, you got it.
5
Say we do achieve our goal of overcoming death, what are we going to do with ourselves forever and ever? Search for a way to reverse the process?
The budget control act\sequestration of 2011 ( effective from 2013 - 2021 ) is the reason for cuts across the board.
Essentially, this was the ''compromise'' in lieu of republicans shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling. ( financial oblivion for the entire world )
Now, hypocritically, republicans are going to enact a budget that eliminates health care for tens of millions, enacts tax cuts for wealthy at the expense of the poor, and massive increases in military spending at the cost of science and the like. ( namely you )
This is what you voted for people. ( at least a minority of you )
Essentially, this was the ''compromise'' in lieu of republicans shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling. ( financial oblivion for the entire world )
Now, hypocritically, republicans are going to enact a budget that eliminates health care for tens of millions, enacts tax cuts for wealthy at the expense of the poor, and massive increases in military spending at the cost of science and the like. ( namely you )
This is what you voted for people. ( at least a minority of you )
3
We are dealing with weaponized stupid here, politicians funded by conservative billionaires who have no use for government, science, or humanity in general. Concentrated wealth is proving to be incredibly toxic to health, the environment, and our democracy.
5
This is what we get when we elect ("elect"?) a businessman to the office of president. Business people tend to view the world through a lens of profit and loss in strictly financial terms, dominated by self interest and short-term, next quarter interests. Whereas, scientists and scientific discovery are dictated by a broader value spectrum, such as saving lives for generations to come. That said, the NIH is indeed a significant economic engine. Taxpayer generated knowledge - what's wrong with that?
9
NIH is the biggest bargain we have. The scientists - PhDs or MDs - could make a lot more money in the private sector. LOTS MORE. They are dedicated to curing/preventing disease and death for all people, not just Americans. Sure some grants are misguided and some are given to those who only look good on paper. But nothing is perfect. Republicans have families who get sick too. Don't think for a minute that they don't immediately call anyone they know in the public health service or NIH itself to have their family members put into a medical trial or evaluated at NIH. And they get that expedited, special treatment. But then, they are are important and the rest of us are just nobodies.
3
@realDonaldTrump Varmus? Who's he? Nobel Prize? Sweden? Isn't that where they have an Islamic crime problem, and don't want to admit it? I've done more for humanity by building Trump Towers and Mar a Lagos than any pointy-headed Nobel Prize guy. Sad. #YahooismAllTheWayDown
7
The NIH funds most graduate research
Without that investment we won't have PhDs or breakthroughs. This is exactly what makes America and its university system great
Without that investment we won't have PhDs or breakthroughs. This is exactly what makes America and its university system great
8
the American University system is great? as a parent of a recent college graduate, a current college student and a future college student I find that comment to be absolutely hysterical.
He's talking about graduate level work, not undergrad. Count me among the many grad students who wouldn't have been able to get a PHD without NIH grant money (my tuition, other fees, and a small stipend were courtesy of a T32 grant).
5
Republicans want budgets cut - but not theirs.
3
and dems want $ spent on their projects, not anyone else's. I guess it kind of evens out.
ALL politicians want to spend money. Don't cite Dems. I don't see this budget actually shrinking when you factor in the increases... increases for stupid stuff. Like a wall, or even stupider, like nuclear weapons.
USA is pouring trillions of dollars for military expenditure only bringing up dead soldiers and ISIS terrorisms at the sacrifice of only 20 billions healthcare funding which may increase American's life expectancy and save those sick?
What a logic!
What a logic!
3
I have news for you. you don't want breakthroughs to extend life expectancy. the demographics of the country cannot support an increasingly older population. already we can't support social security and you think we could support increased mdical costs of an increased aged population. it will bankrupt the country, bring about a depression that will make the "great depression" look like a an off day and ultimately bring about the downfall and overthrow of the country.
Trump's only objective is to destroy and disrupt. Indeed, he and Bannon have emphatically declared as much. If I were an American I would be furious. To say that he is a traitor to America and his actions are nothing less than treason is would not be over stating the case.
America has got to stop this man before he destroys and dismantles everything that has really has made America great.
The whole world order will collapse along with it leaving two Autocratic states, Russia and China to fill the vacuum. This is not a good state of affairs for anybody. Least of all America.
I am baffled as to why any sane American could support this man. This man and his cronies are extremely dangerous to America's interests and the world America has built.
America has got to stop this man before he destroys and dismantles everything that has really has made America great.
The whole world order will collapse along with it leaving two Autocratic states, Russia and China to fill the vacuum. This is not a good state of affairs for anybody. Least of all America.
I am baffled as to why any sane American could support this man. This man and his cronies are extremely dangerous to America's interests and the world America has built.
6
Perhaps the scientists at N.I.H. can discover what Trump is suffering from.
A tremendously great huge superbug has attacked his brain. Sad.
A tremendously great huge superbug has attacked his brain. Sad.
6
As someone with a chronic illness I can very easily say that I am far more concerned with cuts to the NIH than with huge increases in military spending or national security that we don't need.
3
The decline in federal funding has been much steeper in the physical sciences than in the life sciences. If Congress does nothing to reverse this trend of half a century of spending ever tinier fractions of the federal budget on science, members of Congress will be complaining within a decade or so about the high prices the Chinese and the Indians will be charging for their drugs and weapons.
5
It feels like the whole idea of Western civilization is under attack, and from the very people who imagine they're defending it. Like Rep. King with his "somebody else's babies" -- maybe he doesn't know that algebra was invented in Baghdad by Muslims back before Europeans had seen soap? Europeans were the "somebody else's babies" who carried that tradition forward six hundred years later when they finally took up the study of science and math.
When Europeans did finally take up the study of science and math, they were lucky because the Arab scholars of the past had rescued the great works of ancient Greek science and math from the obscurity of the anti-scientific Christian Dark Ages by translating them into Arabic and preserving them as texts in libraries in the Middle East.
Thus Euclid was first known to European Christian scholars in translation from Arabic. This was the complicated route by which Western civilization finally arrived in the West.
It was the subsequent European investment in science and math that eventually formed the basis of European economic and military advancement and superiority in the world.
Meanwhile, Arabs did not invest in science, and lost power as Europe rose.
If America cuts back on science, then China, which is growing its scientific infrastructure, is ready to step forward and take the baton.
When Europeans did finally take up the study of science and math, they were lucky because the Arab scholars of the past had rescued the great works of ancient Greek science and math from the obscurity of the anti-scientific Christian Dark Ages by translating them into Arabic and preserving them as texts in libraries in the Middle East.
Thus Euclid was first known to European Christian scholars in translation from Arabic. This was the complicated route by which Western civilization finally arrived in the West.
It was the subsequent European investment in science and math that eventually formed the basis of European economic and military advancement and superiority in the world.
Meanwhile, Arabs did not invest in science, and lost power as Europe rose.
If America cuts back on science, then China, which is growing its scientific infrastructure, is ready to step forward and take the baton.
8
I wish this op-ed were being published in local newspapers of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, and the many other states where people seem to dismiss the need for developing new knowledge in medicine and health. And it should list specific projects that have made people's lives better so that voters can understand the connection between research and life quality of life in this country.
5
I guess most people here are NOT in scientific community. I'm an international student at a prodigious medical school/hospital in Massachusetts.
Simply put: Science world is intrinsically vulnerable and losing great talents and young minds nowadays.
Why? Because of huge risk of biomedical research and healthcare industry. Science is mentally challenging with facing failure everyday. Most PhDs/Postdocs are well-educated talented human beings selected after rounds of selections, have to work super hard but are sadly underpaid. These talented people, with some training, could get very elegant pay at Wall Street or Silicon Valley or big pharmas. So majority of my colleagues would quit science and switch to consulting, finance, biotech, pharmas and even computer science. They'll earn way more than staying at academia.
So those sticking to biomedical research are those genius, talented idealist truly passionate about science and would like to make a difference. Imagine the world in future where we could cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS. Right now we could manipulate genes in living organism, and generate neurons from fibroblast-derived iPS, sequence whole-genome for 100000 people, which are simply sci-fi even ten years ago.
Also, due to academic "politics", it's more and more difficult for young investigators to obtain fundings. So Trump's 20% cut WON'T affect those established "big names", but force talented young to give up science.
I'm now planning to move back to China.
Simply put: Science world is intrinsically vulnerable and losing great talents and young minds nowadays.
Why? Because of huge risk of biomedical research and healthcare industry. Science is mentally challenging with facing failure everyday. Most PhDs/Postdocs are well-educated talented human beings selected after rounds of selections, have to work super hard but are sadly underpaid. These talented people, with some training, could get very elegant pay at Wall Street or Silicon Valley or big pharmas. So majority of my colleagues would quit science and switch to consulting, finance, biotech, pharmas and even computer science. They'll earn way more than staying at academia.
So those sticking to biomedical research are those genius, talented idealist truly passionate about science and would like to make a difference. Imagine the world in future where we could cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS. Right now we could manipulate genes in living organism, and generate neurons from fibroblast-derived iPS, sequence whole-genome for 100000 people, which are simply sci-fi even ten years ago.
Also, due to academic "politics", it's more and more difficult for young investigators to obtain fundings. So Trump's 20% cut WON'T affect those established "big names", but force talented young to give up science.
I'm now planning to move back to China.
14
This is so heartbreakingly true. So much for encouraging young people in STEM. A big lie.
3
oh, after you got your American education?
2
This is utterly appalling, as is the repeal and replace, the Dodd Frank undermining, the sacking of decent bureaucrats, Russia, lies....etc etc etc.
Keep on reporting NYTimes.
But be sure that the reason Trump is in power is because you, NYTimes editorial, started to posture, always taking the PC line above the law or the fairness or what is equitable
If the NYtimes, had said during the election that it is illegal to come to the US, and not to call them dreamers, and if the NYtimes had not come down on the side of the free trade is ALWAYS good, when it is not for large numbers of people, then we would not have this unfolding carnage.
So while you keep up the reporting also go after those people who handed Trump is victory. Aim to add the to your readership. Tell them what many of us believe to be the case about immigration and trade, and stop the posturing.
Keep on reporting NYTimes.
But be sure that the reason Trump is in power is because you, NYTimes editorial, started to posture, always taking the PC line above the law or the fairness or what is equitable
If the NYtimes, had said during the election that it is illegal to come to the US, and not to call them dreamers, and if the NYtimes had not come down on the side of the free trade is ALWAYS good, when it is not for large numbers of people, then we would not have this unfolding carnage.
So while you keep up the reporting also go after those people who handed Trump is victory. Aim to add the to your readership. Tell them what many of us believe to be the case about immigration and trade, and stop the posturing.
2
The aim to weaken NIH-funded research is unconscionable, almost as if a ploy from the Russians to compromise US leadership in medicine (oh, wait!). Grants given out by the NIH drive biotech startups as much as the Big Pharma R&D and are directly responsible for revolutinary new treatments of cancer, cystic fibrosis, lung injury... the list is interminable.
On the other hand, some Universities have been abusing the system with overhead costs that reach 70% (!) - use of this money is typically opaque and at the discretion of administrators who have been increasing THEIR OWN salaries at the expense of the researchers who actually get the grants. What the gvmnt should do is to curtail the administrative overreach in academic research instead of penalizing the one discipline that keeps the US ahead (of the Chinese, Russians and Europeans). Anyone who has been recently to China is aware of the enormous piles of money the PRC is shoveling at its researchers (often trained at US institutions).
So - Trump is doing exactly the wrong thing. The Chinese and the Russians must be happy with the guy.
On the other hand, some Universities have been abusing the system with overhead costs that reach 70% (!) - use of this money is typically opaque and at the discretion of administrators who have been increasing THEIR OWN salaries at the expense of the researchers who actually get the grants. What the gvmnt should do is to curtail the administrative overreach in academic research instead of penalizing the one discipline that keeps the US ahead (of the Chinese, Russians and Europeans). Anyone who has been recently to China is aware of the enormous piles of money the PRC is shoveling at its researchers (often trained at US institutions).
So - Trump is doing exactly the wrong thing. The Chinese and the Russians must be happy with the guy.
4
Dr. Varmus's column is vital, valuable and extremely important in understanding the reality of Trumpistworld. This statement alone makes this clear: "A substantial N.I.H. budget cut would undermine the fiscal stability of universities and medical schools, many of which depend on N.I.H. funding; it would erode America’s leadership in medical research; and it would diminish opportunities to discover new ways to prevent and treat diseases." Undermining places of higher learning is a major part of the Trumpist drive to "destroy the administrative state," as the Trumpists believe that these universities are places of gestation for the "liberal elite" that they, the Trmpists (really Bannonists) aim to destroy. These universities are a centerpiece of the liberal administrative state and therefore must be destroyed. What better way to do so than to deny funds, or as so aptly put suggested by Dr. Varmus, "(this) could be the starting point for negotiations among appropriators. It is not difficult to imagine a compromise in which the N.I.H. suffers a steep reduction." Cutting away to an eventual nothing via fiat and negotiation. The quid pro quo of our failed Congressional system.
The lack of respect Trumpists show toward the great scientific successes of our country represents a total lack of respect for everything good our country has achieved and hopes to achieve. Science and scholarship lead the way. To these Trumpists, it is all "politics" unless they are doing it.
The lack of respect Trumpists show toward the great scientific successes of our country represents a total lack of respect for everything good our country has achieved and hopes to achieve. Science and scholarship lead the way. To these Trumpists, it is all "politics" unless they are doing it.
1
As stated by Dr. Varmus, even though the NIH depends on year-to-year funding, NIH grants are awarded for multiple years. A potential cut to funding, therefore, must be calculated into decisions about potential grant awards that extend over a five year period. In other words, just this threat of a 20% cut in NIH funding will result in the firing of scientists, the end of projects and the closing (likely permanently) of laboratories.
Hello China - are you hiring scientists with great ideas?
Hello China - are you hiring scientists with great ideas?
3
Definitely, China is in good appetite for hiring top-notch scientists.
Ten years ago, anyone holding American degrees could easily find a faculty position at China's most prodigious universities like PKU or Tsinghua (China's Harvard and MIT). Today at 2017, PKU could almost rank top10 with Tsinghua and NJU ranking top20 for science worldwide.
But China is still lagging way behind except for these top institutions. That's why China is hiring talents so desperately.
Welcome to orient!
Ten years ago, anyone holding American degrees could easily find a faculty position at China's most prodigious universities like PKU or Tsinghua (China's Harvard and MIT). Today at 2017, PKU could almost rank top10 with Tsinghua and NJU ranking top20 for science worldwide.
But China is still lagging way behind except for these top institutions. That's why China is hiring talents so desperately.
Welcome to orient!
1
If President Trump wants to make America great again, he should make sure we lead the world in biomedical research. He should make sure we are the place where every young scientist wants to come. He should make sure we turn out more Nobel Prize winners than anyone else.
2
"...neither a White House science adviser nor a panel of outside advisers,..." says it all. It's probably because he is, 'like smart'.
3
Trump wants to make America great again by making it safe for small pox, polio & ebola.
6
Also China is now expanding science research at an amazing pace.
China now has money, talents, and good atmosphere for science. All the country including government and ordinary people show huge respect to science.
If you look at Nature Index, China is still behind USA for high-quality science, but catching up quickly, way ahead of the third position Japan/Germany.
China now has money, talents, and good atmosphere for science. All the country including government and ordinary people show huge respect to science.
If you look at Nature Index, China is still behind USA for high-quality science, but catching up quickly, way ahead of the third position Japan/Germany.
2
The March for Science is fine, but if scientists had to choose, they should devote time to calling their Senators and House Representatives instead. Every call counts.
4
Please, let me assure you that we are doing this as well.
7
Why should this be any big surprise? Trump and the GOP see science as their enemy, because the same science that they laud for driving innovation in things like computers and the like, is the same science that creates inconvenient truths, like the Earth was created 6000 years ago, evolution is a reality, and global warming is a threat and it is largely man made. If they attack science funding, they think that only 'useful' things will be done, that their holy holy base won't be threatened by science teaching undermining their faith, the oil and gas patch types won't be worried about becoming like coal country, and more importantly, make science into something 'practical' rather than a way of thinking (which to Trump supporters must be a comfort, since their mantra in life is "thinking is over-rated".
What of course Trump doesn't understand is consequences, that the 'waste' they claim is what made all the things they laud, the technology we all use came out of basic scientific research done many years ago, whether successful or failure, among other things. Like many of Trump policies and such, the base and the GOP will find out the cost down the road. The irony is that basic research funding is tiny, it is an afterthought in the overall budget, attacking it is nothing more than getting rid of something conservatives don't like.
What of course Trump doesn't understand is consequences, that the 'waste' they claim is what made all the things they laud, the technology we all use came out of basic scientific research done many years ago, whether successful or failure, among other things. Like many of Trump policies and such, the base and the GOP will find out the cost down the road. The irony is that basic research funding is tiny, it is an afterthought in the overall budget, attacking it is nothing more than getting rid of something conservatives don't like.
3
The Donald doesn't care. He lived his life not caring about a thing,
Wake up America.
NIH’s work has contributed to improvements in our precious life expectancy and our delightful general wellness. Because of sustained research for treating and preventing illnesses that used to bring godawful untimely death to us all.
It dealt in flu vaccines, cancer prevention, advances in care/treatment for every illness under the sun.
Trump is likely unaware its mission is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”
Doubt he could even take the time to interpret that sentence.
He talks in sound bites and bumper sticker phrases. And expects applause.
The majority of NIH funding supports research conducted in universities and the private sector through the NIH Office of Extramural Research.
Guess that will be long gone.
Trump doesn't care.
He is insufficiently educated. Seemingly, Wharton during his time and aptitude, was no better than Trump University.
Read it and weep--or protest it.
www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/03/25/86369/erosion...
Wake up America.
NIH’s work has contributed to improvements in our precious life expectancy and our delightful general wellness. Because of sustained research for treating and preventing illnesses that used to bring godawful untimely death to us all.
It dealt in flu vaccines, cancer prevention, advances in care/treatment for every illness under the sun.
Trump is likely unaware its mission is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”
Doubt he could even take the time to interpret that sentence.
He talks in sound bites and bumper sticker phrases. And expects applause.
The majority of NIH funding supports research conducted in universities and the private sector through the NIH Office of Extramural Research.
Guess that will be long gone.
Trump doesn't care.
He is insufficiently educated. Seemingly, Wharton during his time and aptitude, was no better than Trump University.
Read it and weep--or protest it.
www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/03/25/86369/erosion...
8
The NSF is not even in Trump's budget. Apparently that is being cut to zero.
1
Yes, they have been deleting grant opportunities left, right, and center.
The so-called president Trump is the most successful "businessman" ever walked the face of this earth - just think every time he declared bankruptcy on one of his joints he came out personally richer. And as he said he learned by watching TV, e.g., knows more than the generals do by watching TV. So why not cut ALL findings on science and watch TV science programs instead?
3
Clearly he is not very smart. Probably by far the least sentient human to ever walk into the white house, let alone reside there.
No doubt never even watches science. Since it doesn't mention "HIM"
No doubt never even watches science. Since it doesn't mention "HIM"
1
[This post was accepted but it somehow seems to have been lost, I am therefore reposting].
Part of the problem is what might be called the "Martin Niemöller effect": scientists are not very political by nature and tend only to react to political events when their own interests are immediately affected.
A couple of months back some of us tried to convince the Executive committee of the Association for Computational Linguistics to issue a general statement in defense of science, and against the anti-science initiatives that were obviously coming. They declined to do so. US-based members of the ACL frequently depend on NSF or DARPA funding for their work, and no doubt if and when Trump takes an axe to those (even though DARPA is part of the military, much of what they fund is not weapons-related, so I doubt that program is "safe"), they will probably start making noises.
But that's why it is best called the "Niemöller effect": don't stand up until you are directly affected --- at which point it may well be too late.
Part of the problem is what might be called the "Martin Niemöller effect": scientists are not very political by nature and tend only to react to political events when their own interests are immediately affected.
A couple of months back some of us tried to convince the Executive committee of the Association for Computational Linguistics to issue a general statement in defense of science, and against the anti-science initiatives that were obviously coming. They declined to do so. US-based members of the ACL frequently depend on NSF or DARPA funding for their work, and no doubt if and when Trump takes an axe to those (even though DARPA is part of the military, much of what they fund is not weapons-related, so I doubt that program is "safe"), they will probably start making noises.
But that's why it is best called the "Niemöller effect": don't stand up until you are directly affected --- at which point it may well be too late.
7
The Trump stand to double decimate the NIH (to decimate is to cut by 10%) is not insanity, and serves a clear purpose. To cripple science.
Trump, Koch, Scaife, DeVos, et al, have only one real goal in mind: to steal as much American wealth as they can, through two means: end taxation on the wealthy and end regulation of their industry.
Only an idiot would support such an agenda, so the only path forward is to kill those who would shine a light, who could maintain a fact: a free press, a world-class science culture.
The Republican Party is deeply culpable for cozying up to this agenda. No mystery why- it grants them nearly every elected seat in the state and Federal government. But they will go down in history as the political party that sold American democracy, its glorious science, and free press for a few more years in office.
Trump, Koch, Scaife, DeVos, et al, have only one real goal in mind: to steal as much American wealth as they can, through two means: end taxation on the wealthy and end regulation of their industry.
Only an idiot would support such an agenda, so the only path forward is to kill those who would shine a light, who could maintain a fact: a free press, a world-class science culture.
The Republican Party is deeply culpable for cozying up to this agenda. No mystery why- it grants them nearly every elected seat in the state and Federal government. But they will go down in history as the political party that sold American democracy, its glorious science, and free press for a few more years in office.
12
These cuts should come as no surprise. Trumposis is a disease that is impervious to treatment. It requires blind loyalty to a set of contradictory ideas, influences, neurosis and more severe pa tho-psychological conditions, including delusions of grandeur, narcissism and indifference to others suffering.
Trump and his vulgarians: Conway, Bannon, Miller, Price, are with this budget, projecting just another form of their "anti administrative state" mentality. Their approach seems to be: if a disease has a constituency of support..then research to cure or treat it should be obtained from the private sector. Government need not be involved. If people die..they die. Too bad. Government should be small, limited to extravagant military spending, basic education, and homeland security. Everything else is, in it's own time, fair game. People should be very afraid...very very afraid.
Trump and his vulgarians: Conway, Bannon, Miller, Price, are with this budget, projecting just another form of their "anti administrative state" mentality. Their approach seems to be: if a disease has a constituency of support..then research to cure or treat it should be obtained from the private sector. Government need not be involved. If people die..they die. Too bad. Government should be small, limited to extravagant military spending, basic education, and homeland security. Everything else is, in it's own time, fair game. People should be very afraid...very very afraid.
4
We are!
2
"Furthermore, strong nonpartisan opposition to Mr. Trump’s proposal will come from many quarters, including advocates of research on specific diseases." Oh, Mr Varmus that's funny. Don't you realize that anyone promoting science in this environment is considered a Liberal. A partisan of the highest order. It is unfortunate but true. Human beings are filled with curiosity and are capable of great and wonderful things. Capable of pushing our boundaries and always asking "Why?" or "What's next?". Unfortunately we also have a propensity for greed and accumulation of power. Sometimes the former overcomes the latter - but no nearly as often as one would hope. And never without visionary leadership, something we are completely bereft of.
1
N.I.H. doesn't do any research; it merely doles out money to those who ask to do research. It employs scientifically trained personnel who read and evaluate the proposals, review them, and then issue recommendations. In sum, N.I.H. is primarily a bureacratic outfit. They make judgements on the proposals to fund.
Those who are informed know the recurring lists of useless, junk science publications arising from public funds. Sen. Coburn and other Republicans in congress have continuously been compiling the cases of abused taxpayers money. President Trump is correct to propose cut in N.I.H. budget. The reported 18% reduction cuts out only a part of the waste inherently imbedded in every government activity.
Those who are informed know the recurring lists of useless, junk science publications arising from public funds. Sen. Coburn and other Republicans in congress have continuously been compiling the cases of abused taxpayers money. President Trump is correct to propose cut in N.I.H. budget. The reported 18% reduction cuts out only a part of the waste inherently imbedded in every government activity.
3
You are woefully misinformed...if Trump was serious about MAGA then cutting scientific research funding is going backwards not forwards.
7
Your statement that NIH itself doesn't do any research is totally false. Although external grants are an important NIH activity, it is not simply a grant-giving apparatus. NIH has a robust intramural research enterprise that includes both clinical and laboratory research. I encourage you to check these out at: https://www.nih.gov/research-training. On just the clinical side, NIH clinicians involve over 10,000 research participants and patients every year. (Many of these are difficult cases that the patients' regional hospitals could not handle.) Importantly, the interactions between the extramural grantees around the country and the NIH intramural scientists&clinicians iteratively move biomedical discoveries forward.
7
Much of what you say here is factually incorrect. The NIH has a substantial intramural research program (National Cancer Institute?) in addition to funding research at universities. Grants are subject to peer-review, they are not reviewed by NIH staff. This is a duty that academics carry out to promote the funding of the very best science - essentially for free. Yes there is some programmatic decision making, but almost entirely on grants scored by peers outside NIH. Pointing to the tiny minority of "abused taxpayer money" as support for cutting a fifth of all grant dollars is, well, not statistically sound.
7
Shocking and beyond stupid. Our NIH funded medical research has been the envy of the world and the most productive engine of scientific advancement in the history of humanity. English is the spoken language at all international meetings for a reason. As the wife of someone who has had almost forty years of NIH funding I can attest that these scientists are the most committed and hard working people I have ever know. Most of them could have had much greater financial rewards in the private sector. But businessmen like Trump don't respect that. So we understand that Trump doesn't really care about the American people but how does he think we will make America great again if we gut the basic scientific research that has made our great biomedical businesses world innovators. Be prepared to cede that roll to China and India. They have plenty of post docs working in US labs thatnwill take their acquired knowledge and skills home with them as soon as funding is cut here.
91
I have tried to wrap my mind around what ideological reason someone could possibly have for wanting to cut funding to science and research. If anyone has legitimate suggestions, I'm open to them, because I am completely stymied.
I don't WANT to reach the conclusion that it's pettiness, but I really can't think of anything else. "Scientists are often liberals and so they are the enemy." Is there any other honest interpretation?
I don't WANT to reach the conclusion that it's pettiness, but I really can't think of anything else. "Scientists are often liberals and so they are the enemy." Is there any other honest interpretation?
8
Trump doesn’t know why NIH, NSF, ... should be cut, but that is what Putin demands of him.
Bankrupt America through oversized military spending.
Bankrupt America through oversized military spending.
1
When you have a person with inferior intellect trying to prove he is smart - when in fact he is a dummy ! His decisions are NOt going to be rational or correct
4
The Trump budget is a naked preparation for large scale warfare, such as we have not seen since Vietnam. Military spending is boosted on an emergency basis. Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs are boosted to handle the blowback and casualties from war. Everything else is slashed. There are no other terms on which the Trump budget makes the least sense: it is not a taxcut or deficit reduction effort; it is not an infrastructure or economic growth plan. We know the Bush Administration came to Washington with a war agenda, looking only for the opportune moment. Let's not deceive ourselves. The budgetary evidence in our face is that the Trump Administration has come to Washington with an even more catastrophic war agenda. Whether their plans are for ISIS, Iran, or North Korea, irascible, erratic, truculent Trump is grabbing for a BIG hammer hammer and everything is a nail.
3
We need a bigger military to SHOOT diseases and make America great again!
Is that less than 140 characters?
Is that less than 140 characters?
6
I didn't support Trump but the NIH is out of control with duplicative and unnecessary experiments. Exhibit a: the decades long maternal deprivation experiments on baby monkeys. Horrific cruel, unnecessary and revealing nothing. After PETA obtained videos of the sadistic experiments, sparking public outrage, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) finally announced an end to the cruel psychological experiments on baby monkeys conducted by Stephen Suomi, who led this horrendous project at NIH for more than 30 years. His laboratory is being closed down, and he will no longer be involved in any experiments on animals. The decision came as PETA was about to release troubling new videos and e-mails obtained from NIH showing that the experiments had continued through this year and that NIH officials had lied about the project’s status to members of Congress, the media, and others. Waste and cruelty do not equal science.
2
You do understand that the research collected from those experiments have been instrumental in rehabilitating children that were deprived during their early years of life, don't you? It's also provided critical insight into human behaviour and the impacts of genetics on that behaviour especially when placed into context of significant stressors. This research has provided invaluable insight and has led to effective treatments and interventions for troubled humans. This includes people afflicted with chronic depression, addiction issues, and autism.
2
This story is one sided. See the APA response which is supportive of the work and critical of PETA. http://www.apa.org/about/gr/science/spin/2015/01/suomi-letter.aspx
1
Yes, this is awful. I have a Ph.D. in psychology and I remember being very upset by Harlow's experiments as well as Suomi's 'research'. I had no idea this was still going on. However, basic biomedical research should not be underfunded.
We need the N.I.H. among other reasons to protect us from the profit-motivated "research" done by the pharmaceutical industry. And we need it more now that the F.D.A. is to be run by a venture capitalist from the pharma industry.
$5.8 billion is peanuts! One drug alone sells $29 billion a year or so a year: statin drugs. This drug is not even proven of benefit for primary prevention. The Nov 15, 2016 issue of JAMA shows the on-going debate shows that Americans are gobbling a drug whose benefit is still being argued!
You may also know that our doctors are not required to report adverse drug effects, and if you phone the F.D.A. you'll be told straight-out that adverse drug effects are hugely underreported.
Healthcare, and in particular the drug industry, does not benefit the patient when run for profit.
Here's a simple suggestion to save many billions of dollars: stop prescribing statins for primary prevention. The benefit is not proven, as shown our top medical journals. The adverse effects (all drugs have side effects) aren't reported. Statinvictims.com
We need the N.I.H. to do science for our benefit, not for the profit of a few gigantic corporations.
$5.8 billion is peanuts! One drug alone sells $29 billion a year or so a year: statin drugs. This drug is not even proven of benefit for primary prevention. The Nov 15, 2016 issue of JAMA shows the on-going debate shows that Americans are gobbling a drug whose benefit is still being argued!
You may also know that our doctors are not required to report adverse drug effects, and if you phone the F.D.A. you'll be told straight-out that adverse drug effects are hugely underreported.
Healthcare, and in particular the drug industry, does not benefit the patient when run for profit.
Here's a simple suggestion to save many billions of dollars: stop prescribing statins for primary prevention. The benefit is not proven, as shown our top medical journals. The adverse effects (all drugs have side effects) aren't reported. Statinvictims.com
We need the N.I.H. to do science for our benefit, not for the profit of a few gigantic corporations.
2
What is not being emphasized is that these cuts are aimed at science infrastructure. It will take many years to rebuild science infrastructure if it is cut back so deeply for even a single year. It is our science infrastructure that makes us leaders in biomedical discovery and keeps us healthy. With the gutting of the ACA and of our science infrastructure, we are in for a long slide in terms of health and, in general, some tough times.
77
Cuts of this size will affect human resources as well as infrastructure and. Most of the NIH grant $s go to covering salaries of those doing the lab research, from Professors/Principle Investigators, to staff scientists and technicians, and to trainees including Ph.D. students, postdoctoral fellows, and medical specialty fellows. A rough back of the envelop calculation suggests that 40,000-50,000 scientists of some type would lose their jobs nationwide as a result of a cut this size. AND it would be a huge discouragement to trainees to become the next generation, and may reduce the numbers significantly.
2
Thanks for your comment. I agree and this is actually what I tried to convey. I think of human resources as the infrastructure of scientific inquiry. You need a bridge to cross a river so the bridge is infrastructure. You need scientists to do science so I think of us as the infrastructure of scientific inquiry as much as I think of my qPCR machine as infrastructure.
1
I'm a cancer researcher, a woman, a mum, and an immigrant, and the Trump administration has hit me hard from all sides! I have been at the bench working on understanding how normal human cells turn into cancer cells because of accumulation of DNA damage, and I was *recruited* to this country 6 years ago because of my expertise. Now, I am being told I'm unwelcome, unworthy and my work to help cancer patients' lives not even remotely a priority. Many of my colleagues and friends have been rejected VISA, denied entry or demotivated from even applying to come to the USA. In only a few month, we have ALREADY lost critical scientific power and potential, the prospective NIH cut will be the final stab, with disastrous consequences not just for science, but for people's health and for the *economy*. Perhaps GOP are unaware that scientific research and biotech is bigger than the automotive industry and the fastest growing sector in the country, so disrupting the same machine that keeps us alive, healthy, and inspired means unplugging the country as a whole.
141
This response tells us exactly why people don't really care about the funding of the NIH. For whatever reasons, American students from early on are not as well prepared as many foreign students... so perhaps, federal $$ need to be used to create excellent FREE online courses... a la Coursera, Udicity, Ed X so AMERICANS CAN LEARN and as a result THINK. Are we really all so stupid that H2Bs need to replace all of us? IMO greed ($$) results in arrogance and incidentally bad science. (Some of the study results reported in the NYTimes are stupifying in their uselessness or obviousness... not all but enough. (PS how long do we really need to keep us alive? End of life can be hugely expensive.)
1
Unfortunately, the biomedical research establishment has undermined its credibility with practices like those (recently publicized) of a researcher at Ohio State who has received tens of millions of dollars of funding and published more than a thousand papers, many of which have been discredited for sloppiness (and a few for unethical practice). This pollutes the literature; his funding has retarded rather than advanced biomedical science.
This is an internal matter for the biomedical research community to fix, perhaps by limiting the amount of funding any one investigator can receive and by more critically examining the quality, rather than the number, of published papers. But until it gets its own house in order, it will have limited credibility in Washington.
It's not just biomedicine; abusive entrepreneurship pollutes the rest of science too (the NSF and NASA could do with some big cuts). And we need to stop training Ph.D.s for whom there are no jobs.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University in St. Louis
This is an internal matter for the biomedical research community to fix, perhaps by limiting the amount of funding any one investigator can receive and by more critically examining the quality, rather than the number, of published papers. But until it gets its own house in order, it will have limited credibility in Washington.
It's not just biomedicine; abusive entrepreneurship pollutes the rest of science too (the NSF and NASA could do with some big cuts). And we need to stop training Ph.D.s for whom there are no jobs.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University in St. Louis
12
If you're still in the classroom, you are dangerous!
5
Bad apples exist, in every profession. This must not result in blanket condemnation.
6
With the same argument you could easily slash the Defense Departments budget which recently reported a misuse of more than $100M. Or Medicare for its existence of fraud.
Science is performed by humans, human program directors manage applications, human reviewers determine the scores which determine funding or not. Humans sometimes make errors.
It would be a mistake to punish the entire science establishment for the mistakes of the few. Especially when rooting out the few bad apples will cripple the work of the good folks. And science is not like a new aircraft carrier. If you don't but it this year, you can always buy it next year. If you lose the scientists of today, they will move to other occupations, to other countries, to other endeavors, and they will not train students and their successors.
It will take a long time to rebuild the science infrastructure that has made America great in the past once it's lost.
Science is performed by humans, human program directors manage applications, human reviewers determine the scores which determine funding or not. Humans sometimes make errors.
It would be a mistake to punish the entire science establishment for the mistakes of the few. Especially when rooting out the few bad apples will cripple the work of the good folks. And science is not like a new aircraft carrier. If you don't but it this year, you can always buy it next year. If you lose the scientists of today, they will move to other occupations, to other countries, to other endeavors, and they will not train students and their successors.
It will take a long time to rebuild the science infrastructure that has made America great in the past once it's lost.
8
This is devastating. The problem is that he is unhinged and just doesn't care about the country or its future. Making cogent arguments about future is unlikely to have any impact on him as an individual. Hope the congress doesn't cave in and 'compromise' on the cut. Hope they do not play cynical politics, at least enough of them care about the country rather than pander and explain the rationale for irrational decisions.
1
The Trump budget is not "unhinged" if it is what it looks like: crash spending in preparation for large scale warfare such as we have not seen since Vietnam. That agenda may be unhinged, but Trump's budget, given that agenda, is not. Most of us are not willing to look at the overwhelming evidence that is right in our face. It is too ominous, too beyond the pale. But that's been Trump and mistaken estimation of Trump all along.
4
Excellent article, with a subtext pointing unhesitantly at the incompetency of this president and the unfettered greed of the GOP. A country that has such little regard for scientific research and the arts is a country that is losing its soul.
6
Maybe we need to fund research on why so many in this country lack critical thinking abilities.
10
As a scientist I could not agree more with Dr. Varmus. Doing science has always been expensive. But let's not forget that the mission of the NIH, however broadly framed, has benefited the American people time and again. Treatments for the most devastating diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, infectious diseases, HIV, cancer) are available in your neighborhood pharmacy, some of which the President or his family might rely on. In large part thanks to basic research funded by the NIH. How can this be considered a waste – obviously the system is working.
Why in face of an unemployment rate of around 5% (and the President intends to create more jobs), times of relative peace in the nation, and a growing GDP do we need to cut programs of vital national interest is beyond me, and I'm curiously waiting to hear a semi cogent explanation.
On the other hand, why would we need a 10% budget increase in our military when its budget is already larger than the budget of the 5 next largest military budgets of other nations combined? (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). I'm not aware of a defined or even vaguely stated goal of what this increase is supposed to achieve. Are we preparing for war? Against whom and why?
I suggest we find answers to these question first, before we start cutting any governmental program all Americans benefit from.
Why in face of an unemployment rate of around 5% (and the President intends to create more jobs), times of relative peace in the nation, and a growing GDP do we need to cut programs of vital national interest is beyond me, and I'm curiously waiting to hear a semi cogent explanation.
On the other hand, why would we need a 10% budget increase in our military when its budget is already larger than the budget of the 5 next largest military budgets of other nations combined? (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). I'm not aware of a defined or even vaguely stated goal of what this increase is supposed to achieve. Are we preparing for war? Against whom and why?
I suggest we find answers to these question first, before we start cutting any governmental program all Americans benefit from.
131
To a non-scientist, but someone who can do arithmetic, it seems clear that programs such as the NIH need to be cut simply to pay for election promises. The $5.8 billion NIH cut will pay for 10% of the requested increase for the military. Alternatively, it could be used to pay for a quarter of the estimated cost of the border wall. In electing Trump, we the people decided that our priorities are killing foreigners and keeping those whom we don't kill out of our country.
1
Go back one step. People have been electing politicians who are anti-vaccines, who deny climate change, and who believe in Creationism (V.P. Mike Pence and Sec. Carson).
6
In a better world, money would be spent on scientific discovery to make our lives better over the military.
4
My son, who is getting married next month, is a PHD student getting his doctorate in molecular biology. His fiancé is a research scientist whose father is German and lives in Germany. My son is urging his fiancé to apply for duel citizenship. These are two young bright scientists that our country will lose if all these cuts take place.
4
Advise them to learn something else, if you want them to be able to support a grandchild of yours soon. There aren't more and better paid jobs in Europe, but there are Molecular Biologists for a dime a dozen.
1
@Laura Reich:
You have been deceived by the liberal media. These cuts merely defund a fraction of the bureaucratic overhead, both in N.i.H and the universities who get their funds. And those receiving the funds will now have to make wiser decisions where the money goes: junk science or a worthy field like molecular biology.
You have been deceived by the liberal media. These cuts merely defund a fraction of the bureaucratic overhead, both in N.i.H and the universities who get their funds. And those receiving the funds will now have to make wiser decisions where the money goes: junk science or a worthy field like molecular biology.
1
What the article did not state but should have stated is reported in a Science Magazine article:
Trump’s NIH budget may include reducing overhead payments to universities
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-nih-budget-may-include-re...
The Science Magazine article has a far more useful title.
What that article usefully provides is that NIH pays $6.4 billion for "overhead" for $16.9 billion for direct research grants awarded or almost 38% or 4 in 10 dollars for "overhead". The article states that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pays out only 10% or $1 in $10 for overhead.
Thus, if the guidelines of the Gates Foundation had been followed by the NIH there would have been nearly $5 billion more money going towards direct research ($4.7 billion). This has been going on year after year. Imagine all of the research we could have had but didn't.
Since President Trump likes making deals and since there is a shortage of funding for grants, leadership at universities should agree to the same guidelines of the Gates Foundation of 10% of NIH grants for overhead and retain the current NIH budget thus allowing for nearly $5 billion more per year for research.
Trump’s NIH budget may include reducing overhead payments to universities
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-nih-budget-may-include-re...
The Science Magazine article has a far more useful title.
What that article usefully provides is that NIH pays $6.4 billion for "overhead" for $16.9 billion for direct research grants awarded or almost 38% or 4 in 10 dollars for "overhead". The article states that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pays out only 10% or $1 in $10 for overhead.
Thus, if the guidelines of the Gates Foundation had been followed by the NIH there would have been nearly $5 billion more money going towards direct research ($4.7 billion). This has been going on year after year. Imagine all of the research we could have had but didn't.
Since President Trump likes making deals and since there is a shortage of funding for grants, leadership at universities should agree to the same guidelines of the Gates Foundation of 10% of NIH grants for overhead and retain the current NIH budget thus allowing for nearly $5 billion more per year for research.
4
I think you're misunderstanding how this works, in practice. While the idea of reducing the amount of grant dollars that go toward overhead *sounds* like more efficient spending, the fact is that universities can't afford to pay overhead, so without a proposal to help offset that issue, many labs are doomed. The Gates Foundation can dictate that less of their money goes to overhead because MOST academic labs are also supported by NIH money or similar government grants that cover their overhead. If the NIH can't contribute significantly to overhead, universities cannot pick up the slack.
Considering the funding crisis that many academic institutions are currently facing, this means that new investigators won't be hired, current early career investigators won't get tenure, and senior PIs who lose funding will be facing early retirement - and all of the employees from their labs will now be out on an ever-more-competitive market fighting for jobs. The funding situation is already very difficult, and major cuts to the NIH will only make it worse. Maybe all those unemployed people would just be considered collateral damage to some, but certainly the loss of scientific progress is significant - not to mention the waste of taxpayer dollars that already went into research that will be left unfinished.
Considering the funding crisis that many academic institutions are currently facing, this means that new investigators won't be hired, current early career investigators won't get tenure, and senior PIs who lose funding will be facing early retirement - and all of the employees from their labs will now be out on an ever-more-competitive market fighting for jobs. The funding situation is already very difficult, and major cuts to the NIH will only make it worse. Maybe all those unemployed people would just be considered collateral damage to some, but certainly the loss of scientific progress is significant - not to mention the waste of taxpayer dollars that already went into research that will be left unfinished.
4
Overhead = libraries, recruiting expenses for top faculty, staff to manage reporting to and acquisition of grants, laboratories, etc. Foundations decline to cover overhead, being concerned with one study and one report. In the long-term, if a scholar hopes to get tenure, his/her research needs to bring in money to cover overhead. Overhead doesn't go away simply because a grantor declines to include it as a funded expense. NIH grants are ferociously competitive, in part because they do cover overhead and assist scholars in establishing careers. Which part of the 'overhead' would you eliminate? Application? Reporting? Management? Library? Facilities? Staff? New scholars? Old scholars?
4
@Laura McKnight, @winchestereast:
I grew up in academia and of course educated in academia and the research environment. For example, for the past 20 years or so, states have been chronically underfunding high education so that some of this overhead goes towards teaching instead of research. States pay a far lower proportion of state university funding than they used to while tuitions have been increasing dramatically. The boomers need to pay the same proportion of higher education that their parents paid for them. It is only right and just.
Journals are extremely expensive and overpriced. Instead of NIH, NSF paying the few different journal publishers through overhead of grants, the federal government should just negotiate a single purchase for all colleges and universities that get grants.
I would suggest separate NIH, NSF funding for new faculty making it explicit.
I grew up in academia and of course educated in academia and the research environment. For example, for the past 20 years or so, states have been chronically underfunding high education so that some of this overhead goes towards teaching instead of research. States pay a far lower proportion of state university funding than they used to while tuitions have been increasing dramatically. The boomers need to pay the same proportion of higher education that their parents paid for them. It is only right and just.
Journals are extremely expensive and overpriced. Instead of NIH, NSF paying the few different journal publishers through overhead of grants, the federal government should just negotiate a single purchase for all colleges and universities that get grants.
I would suggest separate NIH, NSF funding for new faculty making it explicit.
Budget Ying-Yang. We have a $54 billion increase in the military budget borne of ignorance--"a budget looking for a strategy". And we have budget cuts lacking a strategy or justification, also done in ignorance of the ramifications and certain to do harm to the US and the world. Fortunately, when wars and conflicts break out around the world due to poverty, disease, climate change and the downsizing of the US security umbrella we shall have a larger military to fight conventional wars. Perhaps we can rename the NIH and redefine its mission to appeal to the limited attention span of this President --something like "War on Diseases Affecting Wealthy White Americans" might do the trick?!
2
Maybe the NIH can come up with a cure for the affluenza bug that has afflicted trump and 100% of Americans in the .09 percentile!
3
Slashing funding for biomedical research, slashing funds for research in other areas of science, making foreign scientists scared to come to the United States, actually barring the visit of other scientists, and slashing funding for science education are all things that will make America mediocre, not great.
Most R&D in the world takes place outside the United States. That happened not because we declined, but because of massive growth in the number of highly educated people around the world. It is not a zero-sum game. We all BENEFIT from innovation done elsewhere---but we benefit most when we ourselves are on the cutting edge of new knowledge. And when we do it in collaboration with the rest of the world.
Most R&D in the world takes place outside the United States. That happened not because we declined, but because of massive growth in the number of highly educated people around the world. It is not a zero-sum game. We all BENEFIT from innovation done elsewhere---but we benefit most when we ourselves are on the cutting edge of new knowledge. And when we do it in collaboration with the rest of the world.
4
That the last two sentences of the second from last paragraph had as great an impact on me as anything I've ever read on this op-ed page.
This is what you get from a business president who's expertise lies in marketing and real estate. Whose competency, and comfort lies only in profit and loss statements. This science stuff is too abstract for Trumps brain and besides it's Bannon's call anyway. How dare some PHD tell the righteous right what to think!
Even a 10 percent cut would destroy exponentially more jobs than Trump can realistically hope to create in his much-beloved coal and steel, which are, and will remain, tiny, tiny industries.
He is going to preside over both the destruction of American employment AND American supremacy in science and technology.
Hope he at least gets a "thank you" from China.
He is going to preside over both the destruction of American employment AND American supremacy in science and technology.
Hope he at least gets a "thank you" from China.
9
American society is becoming more and more intellectually dull everyday. People don't want to understand how things work and how everything has a basis in scientific facts. I'm beginning to think that most people are not even capable of understanding how science works, even if they wanted to. This probably is a result of many things in society including the low nutritional content of our industrially produced food, increasing contamination of the natural environment, and constant distractions, all of which are decreasing cognitive ability.
8
Well written, to the point and powerful. Thank you Dr. Varmus. The challenge is to interpret/distill/simplify this message to digestible soundbites aimed at those who believe this President "make's America great again"...people who support this administration and vilify anything related to the government. Many of these same people benefit daily from medical achievements, clean water, safe workplaces, and scientific discoveries that are a result of support from the Federal government. This administration doesn't care, and seems quite content dismantling years advances that have made this country the world's leader in medicine, science, and technology.
There are almost 325 million people in the US; one could reason that well over 75% benefit from some medical/technological/quality of life improvement that is linked to scientific research. That's 250 million people who should be outraged and protesting in the streets. Unfortunately too many of these Americans are blinded by their hatred of all things government. We need more editorials like this that help us all understand the devastation that can result from reductions to the government's role in research...information that moves the 250 million call or write their elected officials.
There are almost 325 million people in the US; one could reason that well over 75% benefit from some medical/technological/quality of life improvement that is linked to scientific research. That's 250 million people who should be outraged and protesting in the streets. Unfortunately too many of these Americans are blinded by their hatred of all things government. We need more editorials like this that help us all understand the devastation that can result from reductions to the government's role in research...information that moves the 250 million call or write their elected officials.
2
Thank you, Dr. Varmus. I hope other prominent scientists will join you in writing Op-Eds like this one.
I guess the current administration is not different from previous governments that condemned the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that preferred investing in Defense rather than in scientific research. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for self-funded scientists to do research in their basement like Galileo. We need the NIH, by far the largest funder of biomedical research in the U.S., to find better treatments for autism, Alzheimer's, depression, etc.
Readers, please be outraged, call your representatives!
I guess the current administration is not different from previous governments that condemned the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that preferred investing in Defense rather than in scientific research. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for self-funded scientists to do research in their basement like Galileo. We need the NIH, by far the largest funder of biomedical research in the U.S., to find better treatments for autism, Alzheimer's, depression, etc.
Readers, please be outraged, call your representatives!
5
I will continue to call my representatives. But I do not see any actions being taken.
Since our elected congressmen are not acting swiftly enough, might it be possible to have citizens groups form to express outrage at this administrations' policies?
Since our elected congressmen are not acting swiftly enough, might it be possible to have citizens groups form to express outrage at this administrations' policies?
3
Cutting NIH is a core part of Trumpcare. All that medical research just leads to more expensive cures and more expensive medical devices, driving costs up. Dumbing down healthcare is a central part of cost control.
2
We're careening even faster toward solid second-tier status among civilized nations in just about every category. The natural outcome of devaluing science is a brain drain. If the dumbing down of America continues, I wonder where the next decade's STEM students will be looking for jobs? Probably not the USA.
5
Does anyone actually believe that it is Trump coming up with these budgets? All reports seem to indicate that he has the intelligence and patience of a gnat. He's more concerned about his ratings.
Sure, we can attach this to Trump, but we need to look deeper at who's really proposing these numbers and to what aim. The rationale probably centers around doing this type of work in the private sector instead of with public monies. The fallacy of that view should be robustly discredited.
Sure, we can attach this to Trump, but we need to look deeper at who's really proposing these numbers and to what aim. The rationale probably centers around doing this type of work in the private sector instead of with public monies. The fallacy of that view should be robustly discredited.
1
During GW Bush's tenure in office, NIH funds were cut. Disciplines across the board were effectively shut down, from basic science to clinical research. Paylines (the ranking established yearly by the NIH, given their funding) went from 20% (Submissions ranked by peer review were funded in the top 20% of the submissions received that year) to 2-3% (the top 2-3% received the award). Only those submissions that continued study in areas that significantly banked on previous work were funded--the safe bets. But sometimes, the safe bet *isn't the right answer.* It's like looking for your car keys under the street light because that's where the light is best--*but that's not where you dropped them.*
Research has long pay-offs, the questions asked often require years, if not decades of refining your questions, methods and shifting direction when a line of inquiry reaches a dead-end, which it often does. That is the nature of research, "trial and error" remains true. So critical work that may further our knowledge base is effectively dropped, because an immediate answer is not forthcoming. The reviewers want the quicker payoff.
The problem with this is that the rest of the world does not decide to stall research because we do. That freeze left US research behind, from which we are just starting to recover. STEM (and other) research drives technology, which drives the economy. If we are intent on becoming a second-world country, then this is the way to do it.
Research has long pay-offs, the questions asked often require years, if not decades of refining your questions, methods and shifting direction when a line of inquiry reaches a dead-end, which it often does. That is the nature of research, "trial and error" remains true. So critical work that may further our knowledge base is effectively dropped, because an immediate answer is not forthcoming. The reviewers want the quicker payoff.
The problem with this is that the rest of the world does not decide to stall research because we do. That freeze left US research behind, from which we are just starting to recover. STEM (and other) research drives technology, which drives the economy. If we are intent on becoming a second-world country, then this is the way to do it.
1
Funding from the U.S. federal government in basic research drives innovation, benefits the economy, fight diseases and enhances public health. In short, science is an excellent investment. PLOS, the Public Library of Science (Harold Varmus is a co-founder), urges U.S. lawmakers to reject the deep cuts in scientific research proposed by the President. Government funding of the National Institutes of Health and other scientific bodies gives all US citizens an ownership stake in the outputs of that research. Research funded by the NIH and other governmental bodies should not be decreased. If anything, the budget should include sufficient funds to cover the research programs AND report the findings of that research in the scholarly literature.
3
As recent articles have shown, American health care seen from a total population public health-care perspective is already second world in many areas (see recent NYT articles), but American medical researchers still turn out first-world reports in leading journals.
Trump's NIH cuts will simply be one more step in his Plot to Bring America Down, his contribution to Bannon's dream to create a Frail New World.
Professor Varmus suggests that we contact members of the Congress, both Democratic and Republican. We read today that Trump plans to "bring down" any Republican who does not vote for the Republican health-care plan, itself a contradiction in terms. Not much point in my writing to a Republican from New York, is there?
We who read this hope that there are social-science and medical-science researchers who can at least carry out long-term studies of the effects of Trump's war on science, including medical-science, on America's place in the scientific research world.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
dual citizen US SE
Trump's NIH cuts will simply be one more step in his Plot to Bring America Down, his contribution to Bannon's dream to create a Frail New World.
Professor Varmus suggests that we contact members of the Congress, both Democratic and Republican. We read today that Trump plans to "bring down" any Republican who does not vote for the Republican health-care plan, itself a contradiction in terms. Not much point in my writing to a Republican from New York, is there?
We who read this hope that there are social-science and medical-science researchers who can at least carry out long-term studies of the effects of Trump's war on science, including medical-science, on America's place in the scientific research world.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
dual citizen US SE
This:
"It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma".
This statement above is the real issue we are facing as a nation. Facts and evidence are being challenged by those that have been able to live in a dogmatic bubble. Historically, these fact-deniers have never been taken seriously - they never really had a forum to voice their views in the mainstream. The Tea Party takeover of the House in 2010 was a warning shot that these types have the ability to take office and push their anti-scientific agenda. Unfortunately, the nation was mostly asleep for that warning. We now have an administration that has discovered it can tap into the sentiment that has been built up in the portion of the electorate affected by those with that agenda. Facts are now "fake", and critical thinking is an unnecessary tool used by "elites".
This divide is now at a critical mass. Fact and reason must prevail. Universities, hospitals, research organizations, and even the private sector dependent on basic research must unite against this serious existential threat to our society.
"It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma".
This statement above is the real issue we are facing as a nation. Facts and evidence are being challenged by those that have been able to live in a dogmatic bubble. Historically, these fact-deniers have never been taken seriously - they never really had a forum to voice their views in the mainstream. The Tea Party takeover of the House in 2010 was a warning shot that these types have the ability to take office and push their anti-scientific agenda. Unfortunately, the nation was mostly asleep for that warning. We now have an administration that has discovered it can tap into the sentiment that has been built up in the portion of the electorate affected by those with that agenda. Facts are now "fake", and critical thinking is an unnecessary tool used by "elites".
This divide is now at a critical mass. Fact and reason must prevail. Universities, hospitals, research organizations, and even the private sector dependent on basic research must unite against this serious existential threat to our society.
3
As an NIH-funded junior scientist, I am beyond disgusted by President Trump and the Republican "leadership". I live in Maryland and work at the largest employer in the state. Johns Hopkins University. I called Governor Larry Hogan's office this morning to get his position on the proposed NIH budget cuts and he did NOT have one. This is a man who was just cured of cancer by Maryland scientists and physicians who benefit tremendously from NIH funding. The utter lack of decency and respect for human life is UNBELIEVABLE.
FYI, Republicans:
WEALTH CAN'T BUY TREATMENTS THAT DON'T EXIST!
FYI, Republicans:
WEALTH CAN'T BUY TREATMENTS THAT DON'T EXIST!
7
It's not just NIH, it's part of his anti-intellectual (or "anti-establishment" in his supporters' eyes) assault. For him, it's payback time. Few scientists voted for him. Why should he care? It's all about settling scores. Revenge for those who voted against him. National interests be damned. Rise up on April 22 at "March for Science". Dark age of science, reason & evidence is coming even if we don't. We may as well speak out.
2
As a retired researcher, I am shocked at this budget and only hope that Congress will restore NIH funding. It isn't only the NIH campus that will suffer, but research institutions throughout the country. The US has been a leader in science since the end of WWII, but with this president's ignorance of science and the cut-off of H-1 visas to talented young researchers from abroad, we will become a second or third-rate country, going backward instead of forward.
1
The war on science has begun. The damage done by such cuts, even negotiated to a lower %, will be tremendous and felt by the current and future generations in terms of knowledge generation and scientific progress. In addition, science drives innovation, and cutting the best type of science will lead to less U.S. competitiveness. Times are perilous.
1
Fellow scientist over here! Since news of the budget dropped, I have been constantly writing my senators and House rep imploring them to vote against the budget. Unfortunately, Cheeto Satan, his minions and his supporters are too dumb to understand the role of science in our health and well-being. What a shame!
3
"... this is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma."
Yes, but those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma, eschewing science and evidence, flock overwhelmingly to the Republican party. They really do seem to believe the mantra from 1984, especially the last line:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Yes, but those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma, eschewing science and evidence, flock overwhelmingly to the Republican party. They really do seem to believe the mantra from 1984, especially the last line:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2
Two things:
1. "...This is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma.".
Dr. Varmus is too kind. Dogmatic thinking, uncoupled from evidence, IS Republican thinking, not just about science but about macroeconomics (supply side nonsense) and the value of government programs (Meals on Wheels, Headstart,...)
2. This proposed cut needs to be explained for what it really represents: Hard-core libertarian/free market elements of the Republican Party and Trump Administration think that the government can do nothing right, and I'm sure they would cut 100% of the NIH's budget if they thought they could get away with it. But 80-90% of the scientific content of our medical breakthroughs come from basic research, which is a long-term proposition. Pharmaceutical companies do not have the vision or the stomach to invest in it and would rather find ways to stretch their existing approved drugs out ad infinitum. The biotechs these pharma gobble up are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer through the funding of their founders' research and small business grants. We can argue that we should get a better return on our investment, but we CAN'T argue that we would somehow be better off if we didn't make those investments.
1. "...This is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is about a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence as a basis for life-altering and nation-defining decisions and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma.".
Dr. Varmus is too kind. Dogmatic thinking, uncoupled from evidence, IS Republican thinking, not just about science but about macroeconomics (supply side nonsense) and the value of government programs (Meals on Wheels, Headstart,...)
2. This proposed cut needs to be explained for what it really represents: Hard-core libertarian/free market elements of the Republican Party and Trump Administration think that the government can do nothing right, and I'm sure they would cut 100% of the NIH's budget if they thought they could get away with it. But 80-90% of the scientific content of our medical breakthroughs come from basic research, which is a long-term proposition. Pharmaceutical companies do not have the vision or the stomach to invest in it and would rather find ways to stretch their existing approved drugs out ad infinitum. The biotechs these pharma gobble up are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer through the funding of their founders' research and small business grants. We can argue that we should get a better return on our investment, but we CAN'T argue that we would somehow be better off if we didn't make those investments.
2
In addition to the other issues raised here, biomedical research provides state of the art care for all those additional soldiers and border patrol agents that are to be hired. Will they be relegated to the ranks of the poor, working poor, and near-elderly?
I also hope that Congress decides not to rubber-stamp this sad excuse for a budget.
I also hope that Congress decides not to rubber-stamp this sad excuse for a budget.
There have been many in the general public that oppose taxpayer funded research. They are not aware that pharmaceutical corporations also fund research at the expense of the public's health. Although regulated they often bias their research to promote their drug. Scientists have acted many times to oppose biased research and non-objective data but have been silenced by a public anxious to have new drugs come out without studies or trials. They want relief from their diseases quickly even if it means some may die because of an allergic or catastrophic reaction to the drug. This is only a minute area of science there is a long list. Scientists are constantly being challenged by bureaucrats and politicians to deliver. Science results take time. In a world of instant gratification this is not good enough. If cuts to N.I.H., EPA, NSF, NOAA and other science research oriented agencies are made, we will take the hit.
The Trump administration is hell bent on the diminution of civilization. Cuts to social services, education, research, cultural endeavors and public communication media are deep and unwarranted. Couple those with an assault on scientific principles and research and we will have a dumb down populace, one that is already impacted by globalization and the increasing gap in achievement by foreigners. What good does having 300 more planes costing $30 B when they can be shot down with $500 M worth of sophisticated missiles? Does Trump really care about saving $100 M in the Air Force One when he increases the military budget by $55 B, an amount that even the military finds obscene? I can't wait until the next election. In the meantime, save the 1% and the military industrial complex, the majority of the country will suffer.
1
As the parent of a smart, motivated UW-Madison biomedical engineering student one year away from his undergraduate degree who has worked in several research labs in his short career and wants to pursue neuroprosthetic research, I can only hope our Congress takes a hard look at this instead of blindly rubber stamping Trump's agenda. A cut like this would devastate University research labs around the country, and particularly here in WI where our GOP state government is now proposing professors meet an arbitrary teaching hours requirement in order for the university to receive state funding. Of course the teaching requirement will be set by the WI GOP, many of whom have not set foot in a research lab, let alone a university.
The combination of a huge NIH budget cut and arbitrary teaching requirements at UW-Madison will have our dedicated research faculty running for the hills. My son, who has a summer research internship overseas, may just end up staying there. What a loss that would be for the US, and our family.
The combination of a huge NIH budget cut and arbitrary teaching requirements at UW-Madison will have our dedicated research faculty running for the hills. My son, who has a summer research internship overseas, may just end up staying there. What a loss that would be for the US, and our family.
"a more fundamental divide, between those who believe in evidence ... and those who adhere unflinchingly to dogma."
As a researcher and science educator - and a long time admirer of Dr. Varmus - this is exactly what I found so devastating about the 2016 election: Belief in evidence and respect for truth was thrown overboard, entirely at the behest of dogma. Lies trumped truth. Why should any of us bother to seek and teach truth and facts?
Dr. Varmus is entirely correct in what he says, but does he - and can any of us - expect the spineless congressional republicans who've bought into this phony presidency to oppose the Trump budget in any way??
No one should hold their breath over that. We should be pleasantly surprised if not amazed if it happens in any way, shape or form.
As a researcher and science educator - and a long time admirer of Dr. Varmus - this is exactly what I found so devastating about the 2016 election: Belief in evidence and respect for truth was thrown overboard, entirely at the behest of dogma. Lies trumped truth. Why should any of us bother to seek and teach truth and facts?
Dr. Varmus is entirely correct in what he says, but does he - and can any of us - expect the spineless congressional republicans who've bought into this phony presidency to oppose the Trump budget in any way??
No one should hold their breath over that. We should be pleasantly surprised if not amazed if it happens in any way, shape or form.
1
There is a reason the NIH budget is over $30 billion, while the rest of the nation's scientific endeavors are a fraction thereof. Health research is probably the most politically expedient form of scientific research, since it provides politicians the opportunities to declare things like "a war on cancer". This is why I expect the NIH budget to be fine at the end of the day, but I fear the Trump and the GOP will need to take their ounce of flesh from the rest of science budget. They can then argue "but we didn't cut NIH" as they make drastic cuts to NSF, DOE, NOAA, NASA, and all the other research funding organizations.
Dr. Varmus, you misunderstand. The reduction of research into trivial things like developing diagnostics and treatments for heart disease, cancer, addiction, pain, deadly viruses and bacteria will be funneled into really important things like appropriating private property to build a discontinuous wall on the southern border. MAGA!
1
I worked for NIH. There is a vast amount of waste and corruption at the institute. MD-PhD's often work no more than 4-5 hours a day. People award contracts to medical schools in a quid pro quo to get their son or daughter admittance to said school. The bureaucrats are increasing exponentially on and off the campus.
When was the last time NIH cured a disease, or came up with a new vaccine? No, most people there are contract jockeys.
Private industry does a far better job of creating better drugs and medical treatments than a bunch of government goof-offs.
When was the last time NIH cured a disease, or came up with a new vaccine? No, most people there are contract jockeys.
Private industry does a far better job of creating better drugs and medical treatments than a bunch of government goof-offs.
1
I am very critical of the NIH but have you ever worked for a pharma company? The politics there (for most purposes they are a conglomerate) kills almost every good thought and barely any of their targets come from within, they all have NIH paid professors as advisors (who have a legion of underpaid Post-Docs in turn) who feed them their new targets, because the directors are so afraid of failing. Or have you ever worked for a start-up? Many of them have some autocratic financier "with a vision" (and less intellectual flexibility), can't retain talent and fall flat on their face (~97% of the time.) The problem is not that government isn't as good as private, it's because it's currently too much, too cheap.
My husband is funded by NIH research grants. He is not a "goof off." How insulting of you. He works more than 40 hours a week. You should try not to be so offensive when clearly the people you know are not representative of all government funded scientists.
NIH also conducts critical trial studies, many for rare diseases. These trials enable the NIH to conduct important research and provide patients, many of whom will certainly die without access to these innovative therapies, hope and treatment at no cost to them or their families.
Gutting NIH severs a lifeline and will impede vital life-saving research and stall or completely halt potentially life-saving medical innovations.
This administrations gratuitous cruelty seems to have no bounds.
Gutting NIH severs a lifeline and will impede vital life-saving research and stall or completely halt potentially life-saving medical innovations.
This administrations gratuitous cruelty seems to have no bounds.
Most Americans are OK with applied research. But many don't know how dependent that is on pure research. Maybe others do but fear the unknown. Some oppose vaccinations, which when properly developed and administered help to control infections. Knowledge is a form of vaccination against ignorance; but where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise?
1
RICH people can pay for any treatments, anywhere. So why waste money on everyone else? There's a huuuuge wall to build.
1
If the NIH is to thrive, the research agenda needs to be consistent with the needs of the US health care system.Perhaps funding for the NIH would be more acceptable if more funds were set aside to study and apply the findings within the real world. The Federal medical research funding in the US is skewed in the direction of basic research. A few institutions receive a large proportion of the research dollars. Findings move out into the real world with minimal understanding of the utility, cost- or cost-effectiveness of the the therapies that are developed within the NIH.
This fine article limits its scope to the NIH cuts, but they must be seen in the context of Trump's proposed cuts to most parts of the budget that use 'science'. I spent a career working in the sciences, and know first hand how R&D improves the world. Yet science brings us both bad and good, and some refuse to hear any bad news, and instead shoot the messengers. From climate change to pollution to careful, time-consuming research of any kind, some see no political advantage except by cutting such budgets.
American scientific advances may not be able to depend on the character of members of this Congress, as Varmus suggests. What they may respond to is direct contacts, such as emails and calls. www.house.gov and/or senate.gov.
Science is improving our lives from technology to health care, yet some would cut funding for our better future. They must be stopped.
American scientific advances may not be able to depend on the character of members of this Congress, as Varmus suggests. What they may respond to is direct contacts, such as emails and calls. www.house.gov and/or senate.gov.
Science is improving our lives from technology to health care, yet some would cut funding for our better future. They must be stopped.
1
The statin drug that Mr. Trump takes was developed because of basic research on blood lipids before drug companies had the information to know what enzymes to target. The numerous cardiac procedures that saved Dick Cheney's life were developed after many years of basic and applied research. The surfactant treatments that save premature babies from death (like that of President Kennedy's son Patrick) were developed through tax-supported research. This shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Scientists must go through college, often 4-6 years (or more) of graduate school, then one or more post-doctoral fellowships (years more) to acquire the skills that they need to do independent research. Then comes the competitive process of applying for grants. If Trump's proposed cuts were enacted, whole generations of scientists would be left without jobs, and there would be no reason for any young people to bother with STEM classes.
These proposed cuts would condemn us to death from future epidemics, drug-resistant bacteria, and prevent progress in the treatment of cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease. In other words, this cut would affect every family in America.
Scientists must go through college, often 4-6 years (or more) of graduate school, then one or more post-doctoral fellowships (years more) to acquire the skills that they need to do independent research. Then comes the competitive process of applying for grants. If Trump's proposed cuts were enacted, whole generations of scientists would be left without jobs, and there would be no reason for any young people to bother with STEM classes.
These proposed cuts would condemn us to death from future epidemics, drug-resistant bacteria, and prevent progress in the treatment of cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease. In other words, this cut would affect every family in America.
I'm glad Queen Isabella didn't defund Columbus at the behest of the flat Earthers.
Trump and his henchmen are planning to undermine critical scientific research across multiple Federal agencies. Most Americans are not aware of this specific research, and more in-depth reporting is necessary.
In addition, Trump plans to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides the ONLY regular science programming on TV. Children, as well as their families will be further left in the dark on science. We are witnessing an American Cultural Revolution, where experts are dismissed, and the press is disparaged for reporting. This is an extraordinarily dangerous time.
In addition, Trump plans to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides the ONLY regular science programming on TV. Children, as well as their families will be further left in the dark on science. We are witnessing an American Cultural Revolution, where experts are dismissed, and the press is disparaged for reporting. This is an extraordinarily dangerous time.
2
Making America great again by disrupting its leadership in one of the most critical areas not for Americans but all humans. The fact that the NIH has been supported by both sides of the aisle and this Op-Ed is even needed is very alarming.
1
There are two approaches to 'getting ahead' or 'becoming great again'. One approach is to downgrade or defeat your rivals. The other is by moving forward and ahead through the merits of your achievements, which add value not only to yourself but to all of those around you who can use your achievements to generate new achievements. Needless to say the current administration is focused on the former approach of getting ahead and becoming great again and paying for with funds normally earmarked for the latter approach, the meritocratic way. The NIH is the quintessential agency for using funds to reward meritocratic achievements. We must change this approach by this administration.
1
The average life expectancy of Americans has increased by more than 25% in the NIH era, from about 59 years in 1930 to about 77 years in 2010, due in large measure to health care advances directly resulting from NIH-supported research.
One estimate of the economic stimulus catalyzed by NIH is that every dollar it spends generates (or protects) 7 dollars in US economic activity.
What other investments does the US make with such HUGE impacts?
It is insanity to cut NIH funding. Don't let it happen.
One estimate of the economic stimulus catalyzed by NIH is that every dollar it spends generates (or protects) 7 dollars in US economic activity.
What other investments does the US make with such HUGE impacts?
It is insanity to cut NIH funding. Don't let it happen.
3
Trump and Pence installed a far-right, Tea Party extremist as OMB director. This sort of thing is entirely consistent with the lunatic fringe in modern Republican politics. Expect more of the same!
Tomorrow's 5am tweet: "I know more about health care and research than the doctors do, believe me. Nobody knows more it than me." Once again, Trump stumbling around with his eyes closed, breaking things.
3
When Newt Gingrich was in power, he persuaded his colleagues to increase NIH funding by convincing them that because they were mortals, curing disease was in their best interest. Time for him to step up again.
The NIH is crucial in the battle against many diseases. Cancer can be cured if we spend enough for research. This gutting of a fine agency is criminal. You can bet if Trump, or anyone in his family, were to be diagnosed with cancer, he would be tweeting like mad to get the funding back. You can't have it both ways.
The time, Mr. Varmus, to have spoken up was during the long and painful months of the Trump presidential campaign. We all knew exactly what government agencies would be slashed and burned and diminished in a Trump Presidency. A carefree hopey, wishy head-in-the-sand attitude now is not the solution to the devastating problems that will ultimately arise.
The solution? Only through unity. All organizations must join forces and must unite with media that also shares the same concern. The American public must be educated to the peril that is Trump.
The solution? Only through unity. All organizations must join forces and must unite with media that also shares the same concern. The American public must be educated to the peril that is Trump.
3
President Trump ran on the motto "Make America Great Again" , he said he wanted to create more American jobs and he is a businessman. He also likes to make deals.
In high technology and biotechnology America is already the greatest, but China is investing lots of money in biotechnology and other key technologies such as semiconductors to overtake the US.
With the lowering costs of gene sequencing, computing, and the new CRISPR genome editing technology now it is more important than ever to increase NIH funding. The Chinese understand the importance of funding this technology.
Leadership in companies and universities that benefit directly and indirectly from NIH funding should form a lobby that focuses on demonstrating to the Trump administration the effects of additional NIH funding. This would include direct and indirect American job growth as well as widening our lead as a country over countries such as China. Perhaps the firms could even commit to hiring more Americans as a result of additional NIH funding. President Trump would love to tweet that he created more American jobs, so help him out. Make him a deal.
In high technology and biotechnology America is already the greatest, but China is investing lots of money in biotechnology and other key technologies such as semiconductors to overtake the US.
With the lowering costs of gene sequencing, computing, and the new CRISPR genome editing technology now it is more important than ever to increase NIH funding. The Chinese understand the importance of funding this technology.
Leadership in companies and universities that benefit directly and indirectly from NIH funding should form a lobby that focuses on demonstrating to the Trump administration the effects of additional NIH funding. This would include direct and indirect American job growth as well as widening our lead as a country over countries such as China. Perhaps the firms could even commit to hiring more Americans as a result of additional NIH funding. President Trump would love to tweet that he created more American jobs, so help him out. Make him a deal.
So, every dollar spent by the NIH is well spent? It is all critical! Amazing!
His deep cuts to NIH, EPA, Labor, etc., and his elimination of NEA, NEH, and CPB would not be so egregious if he hadn't also increased Defense 54%. DOD is a waste hole for tax dollars. So we can be sure all those extra dollars will be "splurged" in ways we would not like if we could see them close up, as I have in the past when my clients included DOD contractors who always flew first class, stayed in the best hotels, and increased my budgets gratuitously whenever theirs got bigger.
53
$54 million, not 54%. 10% increase. Still a big number.
1
And don't forget what protecting his family on their business trips, his wife and son in NY, and him on his weekly trips to Mar a Lago have cost the country already. Think what could be funded if we didn't have a--I don't want to compare him with Marie Antoinette because I think she has been maligned--have him in the WH.
2
My message to the mainstream, not-insane GOP out there:
I know you got into this Trump mess simply because you want tax cuts and deregulation, but that won't protect you and your family from MRSA and other antibiotic resistant diseases that the NIH battles for ALL of us.
I know you got into this Trump mess simply because you want tax cuts and deregulation, but that won't protect you and your family from MRSA and other antibiotic resistant diseases that the NIH battles for ALL of us.
154
One of the critical issues created by President Trump's approach to funding scientific research is the lead time it takes to assemble and train the kinds of teams that are the mainstay of basic biomedical research. This work is not a couple of people with some test tubes and refrigerator in a converted garage but well-honed teams combining specialties for very specific purposes, most of which are not as dramatic as curing cancer. Researchers may be trying to reduce negative side effects from a specific drug combination, searching for ways to disrupt reproductive cycles of vermin or insects, or increase the extractive efficiency of a process securing a component of a drug from plant cells. Creating these teams requires lead investments in equipment, skill development, and labor. Few private companies want to make such investments in basic research, pursuing instead work with a more immediate and lucrative return. And impediments such as restrictions on stem cell research encourage such efforts to move abroad where science is less likely to fall prey to religious objections. The destructive impacts of reduced funding and displacement will not be felt by the public within the Trump presidency but a decade out it will begin to have an impact. Much of the best stem cell research now takes place in Korea. There is a grand irony that Trump wants to bring home manufacturing jobs while encouraging biomedical and pharmaceutical development to locate abroad, enriching foreigners.
24
I have been connected with NIH for over three decades through Dr. George Thoma, one of the many wonderful people who have dedicated their lives to the betterment of the rest of us through biomedical science. Even as grad students at Penn, George evinced a keen interest in applying science to the greater good through satellite communications for emergency medical use. "Funding" is a general term in the case of NIH, one that does not catch the essence of what NIH does and means. The real term is "Investment with extraordinary rates of return" for Americans and the World. May I assure you readers that there is very little invention and creativity in the area NOT sponsored by NIH. I am hopeful that some other financial way could and should be found to fund the next federal budget.
110
As critical as biomedical research is to our future, as with all government programs significant waste can be cut without harming outcomes. Examples at the NIH (which have been discussed for years) include over-training, excessive "indirect costs", and discontinuation of funded projects. These examples are also counterproductive to attracting the best minds to science.
3
Even when wasted, every penny of government spending is someone's income, and their spending contributes to multiplier effect.
The search for bare bones efficiency in government is actually counterproductive.
The search for bare bones efficiency in government is actually counterproductive.
With all due respect, you claim to have "examples," but don't actually provide any.
1
In re: RC,
I spent my professional life as an academic biologist funded mostly by the National Science Foundation (NSF); an NIH Training Grant put me through graduate school). I've peer-reviewed too many proposals to remember; I've served on NSF funding panels; I've seen a lot and I've thought a lot about what I've seen.
My conclusions? Sure there's "waste" in the system, but there's "waste" in any complex system and that's not always a bad thing. For example, I've had automobile insurance for 40 years but I've never filed a single claim -- were my premium payments a waste of money?
Having seen the US research-funding systems up-close, I can't imagine a more effective and efficient mechanism for creating research excellence. One person's "waste" is another persons "cost of doing business." The US leads the world in scientific research for a reason.
Finally, great advances in any endeavor mandate taking great risks. Most high-risk projects don't pan out, but those that do ... and the rest is history. It's all too easy to view "unsuccessful" risky projects as failures and wastes of money. They aren't: They're part of what it costs to find winners.
I spent my professional life as an academic biologist funded mostly by the National Science Foundation (NSF); an NIH Training Grant put me through graduate school). I've peer-reviewed too many proposals to remember; I've served on NSF funding panels; I've seen a lot and I've thought a lot about what I've seen.
My conclusions? Sure there's "waste" in the system, but there's "waste" in any complex system and that's not always a bad thing. For example, I've had automobile insurance for 40 years but I've never filed a single claim -- were my premium payments a waste of money?
Having seen the US research-funding systems up-close, I can't imagine a more effective and efficient mechanism for creating research excellence. One person's "waste" is another persons "cost of doing business." The US leads the world in scientific research for a reason.
Finally, great advances in any endeavor mandate taking great risks. Most high-risk projects don't pan out, but those that do ... and the rest is history. It's all too easy to view "unsuccessful" risky projects as failures and wastes of money. They aren't: They're part of what it costs to find winners.
3
Cutting the budget of the NIH is nothing less than insanity. The United States has been the world leader in science and technology because we have invested in basic research. This investment has lead to the creation of internationally recognized centers of excellence drawing scientists from all over the world. The international standing of our great Universities as well as agencies NIH and CDC are the envy of the world. Look at the American Nobel prize winners and you will find that a significant number of them were not born on the U.S. . And NIH funding has for years proved to be the mothers milk for our next generation of scientists. The notion that someone would cut NIH funding by 18% and "make America Great Again" are so counter intuitive and moronic that it is hard to imagine anything more stupid.
65
Trumponomics is really a universal unemployment plan.
1
This complete lack of understanding by Trump and most of our politicians can be blamed on our educational system. We do a terrible job of teaching people about how science works. That leads them into believing that science is incomprehensible to all but a few, it's irrelevant to every day life, and it doesn't matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. But don't confuse our politicians or our president with this. They have no desire to understand how science works or how any research affects our quality of life, how our computers work, how our climate works, or how we predict the weather. Everything to them is a plot by someone else or a fake fact.
78
We owe the republicans to have a population that is poorly educated. Keep people dumb so that fear can be easily convey and republicans can save them.
2
"God said abracadabra" seems to be a perfectly adequate explanation for anything to the people who see merit in Trump.
1
I would blame it more on the anti-science religious conservatives that have gained so much power particularly in this administration.
Putin has a small budget for medical research and a large budget for his army, and Trump is evidently trying to emulate his patron and idol. What a weakling!
33
Simply stated, it is utter insanity to cut the funding that supports the research that improves the life and health of everyone.
Forrest Trump and his minions are in full assault mode against what has made our nation truly great.
We can only hope that the American spirit will swat down his efforts.
Stupid is as stupid does just about sums up our president.
Forrest Trump and his minions are in full assault mode against what has made our nation truly great.
We can only hope that the American spirit will swat down his efforts.
Stupid is as stupid does just about sums up our president.
29
Prof. Varmus ends this excellent opinion piece by stating: "In confronting the president’s assault on the N.I.H., all members of Congress face a moment that will define their character and the future of the country." Character? What character? When, in recent years, have Republicans shown much in the way of character, especially in light of their cabinet nominations and the likely House proposal to make affordable health care so unaffordable for so many?
37
Groveling and grubbing for money is all these people do. They don't solve any problem that becomes a lucrative cause for fundraising.
1
Explain to him this is where we keep the germs in check... Ebola Donnie is going to get you. If you want to live you, and we, need the NIH.
14
Also, we need to keep the CDC fully funded. This is vital to our health. They track and identify viruses, diseases and NIH finds cures. They are collaborative and work to keep us healthy and safe.
So, we will Make America Great Again by gutting the world's premier medical research institution? Which is responsible for funding a large proportion of our academic research? And the graduate students and post-docs that provide the labor?
Following this logic, we can make our military great again by abolishing the Marine Corps.
Trump's and Mulvaney's logical skills would be improved by lobotomies.
Following this logic, we can make our military great again by abolishing the Marine Corps.
Trump's and Mulvaney's logical skills would be improved by lobotomies.
59
Maybe America was great before Columbus wrecked its isolation from the rest of the world. Trump has never specified when it was great, or why.
Wow! Dr. Varmus' article should be required reading by every member of Congress. And more importantly to all Americans. His article precisely describes how the N.I.H. is funded, how the funds are allocated, and the impact on future generations of Americans. And what is even more remarkable, he uses language that any American can understand.
Thank you, Dr. Varmus.
Thank you, Dr. Varmus.
20
Most of us here need no persuading about the value of biomedical research, though your argument that only 5% is spent on administrative costs is a valuable one. However, beyond the pages of the NYT it would be better to provide specific examples. To bemoan the fact that some researchers won't get to have academic careers, or that projects will be cut short is to invite the 'so what?' reaction. The biomedicial research community should present concrete examples affecting people's lives in order to effectively advoccate for the continued support of the NIH.
14
The NIH and just about every other federal agency I know tries hard to make examples available. (For instance, see https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/impact-nih-research.) Many individual scientists also try hard to get results from their NSF/NIH/NOAA/...-funded research picked up by journalists. All NSF-funded work requires a component to disseminate findings to the public, and many scientists take to schools to try to teach students about their research. It all takes a lot of time and effort, but researchers do it. Unless scientists and the government start taking out advertisements, I'm not sure what else there is to do. I'm genuinely curious what better methods are available.
Hi there! I am a research technician in a laboratory funded by grants from the NIH. I will certainly jump in to tell you our story to provide a concrete example of why what we do is important.
One of the current projects in our laboratory is working on preventing and treating infections that occur post-operatively in patients that receive orthopedic implants. As of 2011, nearly 3 million of these operations were conducted worldwide, and with the increasing age of the baby boomer generation, one can expect these numbers to increase substantially.
A major complication with orthopedic implants is bacterial infection; many of these infections are caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria and can be fatal. Currently our funding from the NIH is helping us research how to treat these infections using methods other than antibiotics, or how to combine these alternative methods with antibiotics to increase the efficacy of the latter.
I didn't appreciate the larger-reaching implications of my job until I was chatting with a girl my age who was receiving a titanium implant in her leg. She was understandably nervous about the possibility of a post-operative infection that could be potentially untreatable due to antibiotic resistance. It makes the whole thing very real, and made me really appreciate the importance of what my current project.
One of the current projects in our laboratory is working on preventing and treating infections that occur post-operatively in patients that receive orthopedic implants. As of 2011, nearly 3 million of these operations were conducted worldwide, and with the increasing age of the baby boomer generation, one can expect these numbers to increase substantially.
A major complication with orthopedic implants is bacterial infection; many of these infections are caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria and can be fatal. Currently our funding from the NIH is helping us research how to treat these infections using methods other than antibiotics, or how to combine these alternative methods with antibiotics to increase the efficacy of the latter.
I didn't appreciate the larger-reaching implications of my job until I was chatting with a girl my age who was receiving a titanium implant in her leg. She was understandably nervous about the possibility of a post-operative infection that could be potentially untreatable due to antibiotic resistance. It makes the whole thing very real, and made me really appreciate the importance of what my current project.
1
Pure science is done without the urgency of immediate payoffs.
This op-ed piece is a lost opportunity. Instead of emphasizing how disruptive the cuts will be to NIH's programs, it should instead have reminded everyone how biomedical research, in the long run, will dramatically improve human existence. Oh well.
4
My husband was a scientist, conducting seminal research in neuroscience, and depended for his work on NIH grants. He died too young of cancer, for which the most promising treatment--that may yet save others' lives--were being developed based on NIH grants.
This budget says to me that neither he, nor his work, matter to this Administration.
Sad.
This budget says to me that neither he, nor his work, matter to this Administration.
Sad.
222
The N.I.H. is among the leading cancer research institutes, among other many vital researches they conduct.
When someone is diagnosed with cancer at Walter Reed National Military Hospital in Bethesda, every single new case of how to treat that patient and give him/her the best chance of survival with the least invasive procedures is decided once a week in coordination with N.I.H. cancer specialist in a conference at Walter Reed.
Maybe our military loving president who might once land at Walter Reed should look into that.
When someone is diagnosed with cancer at Walter Reed National Military Hospital in Bethesda, every single new case of how to treat that patient and give him/her the best chance of survival with the least invasive procedures is decided once a week in coordination with N.I.H. cancer specialist in a conference at Walter Reed.
Maybe our military loving president who might once land at Walter Reed should look into that.
22
"military loving President"? Draft-dodger President.
1
If the NIH Bethesda main campus could be converted into a golf course, Trump would probably boost its budget huuugely.
Remember the Pompe's Disease patient so prominently highlighted by Trump at his address to Congress? The basic research behind the treatment was largely done with NIH funding.
It's pretty clear that Trump is clueless about NIH, the other scientific agencies, and how research is done.
Remember the Pompe's Disease patient so prominently highlighted by Trump at his address to Congress? The basic research behind the treatment was largely done with NIH funding.
It's pretty clear that Trump is clueless about NIH, the other scientific agencies, and how research is done.
24
This is a man who uses the word "quickly" a lot. Governing is not a quick process and, certainly, science takes way too long for Trump. Add that to his baseline state of being almost totally incurious about the world and you can see why things like NIH and climate science are far beyond his narrow focus of (very short) interest. They have no value or interest for him so, from his egocentric view of the world, why should they have any value for anybody else?
14
Thank you! We need more scientists to speak up!
15
Scientist here. What many people don't realize is the NIH funding is essential to the next generation of scientists. I was able get my PH.D. at UC Berkeley in no small measure do to the funding of an NIF Fellowship and then went on to have a career in drug research. The NIH has been responsible for funding the education of many tens of thousands of scientists. Cutting the NIH by 18% is like saying we have determined to reduce the number of our next generation of scientists.
13
US Biomedical research, supported by NIH and other institutions, is one area where we out-perform the rest of the world. It leads to innovative technologies and therapies with the potential to improve millions and billions of lives. To cripple this endeavor would be incredibly destructive.
Perhaps Mr. Trump is incapable of understanding this. Scientists and those who support reality-based decision making must persuade other representatives in government to prevent this disaster.
Perhaps Mr. Trump is incapable of understanding this. Scientists and those who support reality-based decision making must persuade other representatives in government to prevent this disaster.
12
This one baffles me. It has long been clear that Trump and his alt-right bandits would cut programs that support the poor and vulnerable. But the NIH researches rich white people diseases, too.
14
Trump and his henchmen seem dedicated to dismantling all that is noble about America. From hard-won voting and reproductive rights to diplomacy, climate solutions and medical care for all, we are condemned by him to mediocrity or worse. American science, biomedical and physical, has been in the forefront.
So much misery has been averted by what comes from the N.I.H. in particular.
When will voters and legislators realize that we are on the downward spiral to oblivion if the Trumpsters aren't removed? Wake up, America!
So much misery has been averted by what comes from the N.I.H. in particular.
When will voters and legislators realize that we are on the downward spiral to oblivion if the Trumpsters aren't removed? Wake up, America!
17
I wish I could see comments and recommendations in the thousands to this article. Too much time and energy is spent wringing our hands and repeating our distaste for this administration. I get the sense that even the "resistance" is reading angry op-ed pieces that rail against Trump, rather than content-filled essays such as Dr. Varmus's, which give concrete ammunition to use in advocacy.
7
Dear Member of Congress (or the staffer who reads their mail):
A big cut to the NIH budget might eliminate the research program that could save YOU or a beloved family member from a dread disease. Are you really sure that you want to risk that to give a defense contractor a few more bucks--even if they are in your district?
Your Constituent
A big cut to the NIH budget might eliminate the research program that could save YOU or a beloved family member from a dread disease. Are you really sure that you want to risk that to give a defense contractor a few more bucks--even if they are in your district?
Your Constituent
10
While the proposed 20% cut would be catastrophic, even a 2% cut would be devastating to medical research. The proposal to eliminate biomedical training programs is asinine. The impact will be felt in all parts of the country including Trump’s misguided voters. This will make America sick and stupid.
10
"This will make America sick and stupid."
Like it's not already. Sicker and more stupid may be more to the point.
After viewing the Republican party's war on science, and their campaign against knowledge in general, it's difficult not to conclude that they really want to keep the masses as ignorant as possible. Such an ignorant electorate is more gullible and susceptible to the Republican propaganda machine.
Like it's not already. Sicker and more stupid may be more to the point.
After viewing the Republican party's war on science, and their campaign against knowledge in general, it's difficult not to conclude that they really want to keep the masses as ignorant as possible. Such an ignorant electorate is more gullible and susceptible to the Republican propaganda machine.
2
I appreciate the letter Dr. Varmus wrote, but he completely failed to describe the current state of academic research labs across the U.S. It is abysmal. Labs in large and small institutions are shrinking or closing due to lack of available funding. The awful secret is that many of those PIs staying afloat are doing so by bringing in free labor from their home countries, primarily Asia. It is not uncommon for a visitor to hear no English spoken as they walk through our labs today. This ship has been sinking for a long time.
10
Oh, great. As if I wasn't worried enough about this administration. Thanks.
3
Science is about searching for the truth. That is a concept Trump cannot tolerate. He despises, ridicules and destroys everything he cannot understand or that does not laud Himself. Science is anathema to Trump because he cannot control it. If NIH were to do a study called "The Exceptionability of Trump", he'd approve.
15
If anything the Trump administration does to drag the U.S. down to second-rate status, it will be its neglect of our national scientific infrastructure.
Disclosure: I am a scientist. I see it coming.
Disclosure: I am a scientist. I see it coming.
12
There is absolutely nothing Trump will do to improve anything.
1
It is very disgenuing to state that adminstration cost is very small in the NIH spending. In fact, the "adminstrative state" in universities are supported by the "indirect cost" of NIH funding. The research/university system should be disrupted and it is long overdue! Don't be fooled by the false images of pure-hearted scientists working day and night to pursue the absolute truth of universe or try to cure a disease. The system is insulated from market force and it runs on its own interests. BTW, speaking of burdensome regulations, President Trump should take a close look of the IRB craziness. It is just insane! Besides, the research community has always been on life support by relying on foreign labors. Unlike private industries, universities can have their separate H1B applications.
In order to make America great again, the research/university administrative state must be disrupted. More funding should be allocated to STTR and SBIR and let market force runs its course. In fact, private industries are doing more basic research already. Research can bring competitive advantage to a company in order to differentiate from competitions. Small business should have chances to apply for H1B and the number of H1B issued to universities should be significantly reduced. Indeed, I totally agree that this issues is non-partisan! As a tax payer, I refuse to pay for research at its current state.
In order to make America great again, the research/university administrative state must be disrupted. More funding should be allocated to STTR and SBIR and let market force runs its course. In fact, private industries are doing more basic research already. Research can bring competitive advantage to a company in order to differentiate from competitions. Small business should have chances to apply for H1B and the number of H1B issued to universities should be significantly reduced. Indeed, I totally agree that this issues is non-partisan! As a tax payer, I refuse to pay for research at its current state.
9
Your one factual claim is false:
Private industry is not doing more basic research. First it comes down to the question of what is basic research -- this means work that has primarily academic interest and is not being done to directly, eg, make a drug, but rather discover what pathways a drug might be able to target. Companies are not doing basic research. They are taking academic research and converting it to profits. Moreover, the numbers for private research which do total more than those supported directly by government does not mean that that work becomes available knowledge -- companies restrict what can and cannot be published, and we learn less from corporate research that gives us a sleak new toaster than we do from an academic lab that identifies a new regulatory pathway in Zebrafish...
Private industry is not doing more basic research. First it comes down to the question of what is basic research -- this means work that has primarily academic interest and is not being done to directly, eg, make a drug, but rather discover what pathways a drug might be able to target. Companies are not doing basic research. They are taking academic research and converting it to profits. Moreover, the numbers for private research which do total more than those supported directly by government does not mean that that work becomes available knowledge -- companies restrict what can and cannot be published, and we learn less from corporate research that gives us a sleak new toaster than we do from an academic lab that identifies a new regulatory pathway in Zebrafish...
While research/university could certainly be improved, no good can come by advocating that it should be "disrupted". You don't know what you are talking about. SBIR and STTR programs cover only a few years and are only valuable for R&D when one is very close to a commercial application. Deep fundamental research can take decades to yield its fruits. For example, Dr Varmus discovered and identified in the 1970's the first member of the large family of protein called tyrosine kinases that are directly involved in cancer, which then led to the development of the anti-cancer drug Gleevec by Novartis in the 1990's. Maybe if yourself or one of your family member has cancer, you would be positioned to acknowledge the value in that.
I think this is an important point about true overhead: indirect costs charged by universities are ~50-60% (to ~100% for institutes) on many NIH grants. It is my impression that different agencies negotiate different indirect cost rates, so they can be lower, and they are checked at different rates. But even at my top university, we (in basic science) are still subsidized by elective medical procedures at the medical school.
Not sure what you mean to imply about "don't be fooled by the false images of pure-hearted scientists working day and night to pursue the absolute truth of universe or try to cure a disease." I wish I could invite you to my lab! That's exactly why I went into science, and that's very much the sentiment in my trainees. Scientists earn $20-$30k/year (mostly considered not earned income by the IRS) for our 20s as PhD students and a bit more as postdocs. It's a very high risk career choice, and not a soul is in it for the money.
Not sure what you mean to imply about "don't be fooled by the false images of pure-hearted scientists working day and night to pursue the absolute truth of universe or try to cure a disease." I wish I could invite you to my lab! That's exactly why I went into science, and that's very much the sentiment in my trainees. Scientists earn $20-$30k/year (mostly considered not earned income by the IRS) for our 20s as PhD students and a bit more as postdocs. It's a very high risk career choice, and not a soul is in it for the money.
Very well put. Republicans are apparently happy to fly in planes (who know Bernoulli's equations were so complicated), use cell phones (who know that information travels in waves) and microwave their food (who know you could hide cameras in there). When they're sick they seem to accept medical and surgical treatment, usually by doctors trained in the field (since anyone can be president presumably anyone can transplant a liver). So they reap the benefits of scientific minds, inquiry, and advancement but at the same time refute the underlying premise of all science and medicine - that of logic and proof rather than dogma. They are returning us to the Inquisition where Galileo was jailed for suggesting that the center of the universe isn't the earth. Someday they will all die from illnesses that perhaps could have been cured if they spent their effort promoting medicine and science instead of their "China created the gobal warning hoax." To quote our twitter (or is that twit) in chief SAD...
5
One general conclusion from Trump generally and his budget in particular is that his decisions are short-sided and impetuous. Traditionally, we increase our military spending when we anticipate a war. Given the article in today's paper, we already outnumber (except for actual soldiers) everyone--even added together. Only if China, Russia and India joined forces--are we fighting a close-to-equal force. (Only in nuclear weapons are we outnumbered and that is a war the whole world loses.)
With rising populations diseases increasingly arise and spread globally before we are aware, Climate change and the social disruptions that will follow, disease and famine are going to be our future challenges. Look to the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse: apart from the first, they are war, famine, plague and the devastation that follows. Remember the Black Death and the 1918 Influenza.
We need sentinels and response organizations like the WHO, the NIH and the CDC more than ever.
With rising populations diseases increasingly arise and spread globally before we are aware, Climate change and the social disruptions that will follow, disease and famine are going to be our future challenges. Look to the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse: apart from the first, they are war, famine, plague and the devastation that follows. Remember the Black Death and the 1918 Influenza.
We need sentinels and response organizations like the WHO, the NIH and the CDC more than ever.
4
The currency of knowledge is decidedly in deficit with the current administration.
4
a "business" approach always emphasizes the short term over lasting investments and in some fields, such as science and education, the long-term is where the payoff lies. Trump is a proven conman, surrounded by greedy exploiters and supported by various groups hoping to exploit the opportunity. If the nation can be saved as a decent place to live and work it won't be until the damage has been undone.
4
His budget outline was meant to be red meat for his base, many of whom have disdain for research expenditures such as the NIH budget, EPA etc. Man in the GOP congress will not want to see their districts lose local research grants but for areas of the country where these are not a priority, cutting research budgets will play well at home. Only if those in the GOP congress feel their re-election chances are in jeopardy will they fight for more research dollars. Sadly, it will not be because our country needs a robust research program to meet our future challenges.
2
We are seeing this from an administration and party that is anti-science. It should come as no surprise.
6
A frequently heard refrain among Republicans -- and even a few Democrats -- for years is that we need a businessman to run the federal government just as business is run. Having run several businesses over 30 years, I see that Trump & Co. is making the same rookie mistakes that many new business leaders make -- going to extremes to save money from the core of the enterprise to fund some new initiative of uncertain value. In publicly traded companies, such behavior is usually tempered by boards of directors and shareholders. In privately held enterprises like the one Trump runs, there are often no such checks. In that case, the whim of the patriarch can sink the enterprise and the history of business is littered with millions of such failures. Trump may have made the same mistake when he invested heavily in gambling casinos in New Jersey, but he was bailed out by bankruptcy courts and a smart tax accountant. Unfortunately, neither of these entities will help the rest of us now.
4
He has appointed neither a White House science adviser nor a panel of outside advisers, both of which have been customary for presidents from both parties for decades.
Mr Trump doesn't need input from scientists, as he is a smart guy and knows much more than they do anyway.
Mr Trump doesn't need input from scientists, as he is a smart guy and knows much more than they do anyway.
1
Trump is a true pioneer. He's creatively probing new and never before achieved depths of fear and ignorance, in regard to American political leadership.
8
In my schooling and career as a scientist, I have had to switch paths many times, starting when Reagan slashed research funding shortly after he took office. Instead of advancing science for mankind, I am advancing scientific talking points for Big Pharma. Not without merit, but not what I hoped to be doing 35 years on.
The gutting of scientific and educational funding has bee going on since Reagan and I have never quite understood why there is a push to ignorance rather than knowledge. In part it may be a worker/management thing. Managers with college educations usually know less about how to actually do the work at hand, for better or worse, and it is satisfying to disparage the boss - I take the same attitude to the MBAs who often run the business side of science - all dollars, no science.
But I think that politicians, Republicans mostly, have subliminal knee jerk reaction to education: If they (the public) get too smart, they might take away what we (the politicians, the elite) have; keep 'em stupid. Certainly nothing close to this would ever be articulated out loud, but when you look at the strands of Republican science and education policy: deny evolution, deny climate change, deny medicine (when political convenient), deny economics and social science, it is hard to conclude otherwise.
Now we have come to the era of denying and suppressing facts.
I recently needed an article from the NIH: Web under revision. The damage can come long before budgets are cut.
The gutting of scientific and educational funding has bee going on since Reagan and I have never quite understood why there is a push to ignorance rather than knowledge. In part it may be a worker/management thing. Managers with college educations usually know less about how to actually do the work at hand, for better or worse, and it is satisfying to disparage the boss - I take the same attitude to the MBAs who often run the business side of science - all dollars, no science.
But I think that politicians, Republicans mostly, have subliminal knee jerk reaction to education: If they (the public) get too smart, they might take away what we (the politicians, the elite) have; keep 'em stupid. Certainly nothing close to this would ever be articulated out loud, but when you look at the strands of Republican science and education policy: deny evolution, deny climate change, deny medicine (when political convenient), deny economics and social science, it is hard to conclude otherwise.
Now we have come to the era of denying and suppressing facts.
I recently needed an article from the NIH: Web under revision. The damage can come long before budgets are cut.
9
The insanity - and I use that term with deep consideration - of cutting into some of the most important "muscle" of the U.S., scientific research, and science in general, can only be explained by the two-realities theory. There is the real reality and the alternate one. Studies of Trump supporters, whose enthusiasm and applause at rallies deeply affect Trump's positions, shows a very high correlation with conspiracy theory belief. In that reality "chem trails" are as threatening as MRSA, vaccinations are as dangerous as Zika, and science is an anti-God plot by avaricious scientists. Trump seems to live in that alternate reality, and from there he will make catastrophic mistakes.
6
If you or a relative have any type of cancer, communicable disease, or care about Ebola or Zika coming this way (if your perspective is that of America First, rather than People First), contact your representative and senators and let them know this is Foolishness at its highest level. Not only does the work of the NIH work on illnesses that you or your family will someday suffer from, it is also a training ground for the researchers of tomorrow, who will work on the diseases and afflictions coming at your grandchildren and great grandchildren.
4
Trump, like Reagan, does not understand that cutting basic research budgets in any area of science and technology especially is one way to ensure that America will not remain great. Basic research is critically important to a strong, competitive, and dynamic economy because it supports innovative efforts having enormous benefits to people, business, and the country.
If the government does not adequately fund basic research, no company or industry will contribute to cover the shortfall in funding because basic research cannot be patented; there is no adequate return on investment. Cutting funding for basic research does not eat economic seed corn needed for growth; it prevents the growth of economic seed corn.
America's economy and its role in the future global economy will diminish in proportion as others take the lead and enjoy the benefits resulting from basic research. Moreover, many foreign students who come to this country because of basic research conducted at colleges and universities will go go elsewhere or stay home; since many who study here stay here, America will forego the good which they do the economy.
If the government does not adequately fund basic research, no company or industry will contribute to cover the shortfall in funding because basic research cannot be patented; there is no adequate return on investment. Cutting funding for basic research does not eat economic seed corn needed for growth; it prevents the growth of economic seed corn.
America's economy and its role in the future global economy will diminish in proportion as others take the lead and enjoy the benefits resulting from basic research. Moreover, many foreign students who come to this country because of basic research conducted at colleges and universities will go go elsewhere or stay home; since many who study here stay here, America will forego the good which they do the economy.
6
Based on his yet to be diagnosed and potentially incurable brain disease, President Trump needs the important, life saving work of the N.I.H. now more than ever.
10
NIH funding, EPA, CDC, funding for vaccines, clean water protection--including of the Great Lakes, which contain 80 % of all fresh water in USA: these all deserve better consideration. They are as vital as the military for our safety.
7
The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, which fund a large proportion of medical and scientific research in this country, are national treasures. The research they support cures diseases, improves our technology and our economic competitiveness, and produces advances in basic science needed to make these things possible. It also helps to train the next generation of scientists. Cutting NIH and NSF funding would be short sighted and highly counterproductive. It should not be allowed to happen. Urge your congressional representative and senators to make sure it does not.
6
For someone who says his goal is "making America great again" to cut funding to an agency that supports and does basic scientific research and supports small businesses doing research doesn't make sense. This is cut is a nationwide hit, hurting scientists and research institutions throughout the US. Should we not be leading in science, research and the elimination of diseases? Sometimes, before getting to that step of how to control the disease, it must be studied to find out how it works, what it is. This basic research can open doors to those who will discover means to control a disease or eliminate it. There are diseases that could be controlled or prevented if only the research pointed to the means to control, prevent or eliminate the disease. Then, to protect the safety of those who would use medicine or medical devices to control or eliminate diseases, very carefully constructed studies need to be used to thoroughly check what an experimental medicine or device does. It is important to find out before something is in wide use whether it has side effects that do more harm than good and whether the drug or device does what it is supposed to do. All of this research costs $$$$ - to pay for the scientists, the doctors, the assistants, the facilities etc. Will we export our research, science and innovative businesses to other countries as we are trying to bring manufacturing jobs back? Wouldn't it make more sense to promote basic research to bring jobs to the US?
4
My daughter, is going to get her phd in cell biology and bioinformatics within a year. Her work and that of her colleagues may not get the funding they need if this is passed as proposed. It is valuable work that will benefit human health. It is up to us to contact our representatives now to fight for this funding.
6
Since our poor excuse for a president CLEARLY understands little of both science and technology, how can anyone think he would be a good choice to lead us into what's coming? Clearly war will be germ-based, technology will leave most of us behind as it gets more complex by the minute, and this so-called president plans to play war games with his budget like a bullied kid in a playground who throws rocks because he knows no better. Our entire future as a nation and as individuals depends highly on whether we can stay ahead of the rest of the world in science and technology. And The Donald struts and frets as if he knows what we need when he has absolutely no idea. We are at the edge of an abyss, and he must be impeached NOW to save our hopes for the future!
5
The NIH budget is already bloated. Just because the overall work is beneficial and much of the NIH third party commitments are locked in does not mean that cuts are inadvisable. There is not one scintilla of recognition or compromise by liberal science administrators to do their part in enhancing the efficiency of our government.
If state universities need more funds let them procure it themselves or locally. Not everything needs to be federalized at the expense of the taxpayer.
If state universities need more funds let them procure it themselves or locally. Not everything needs to be federalized at the expense of the taxpayer.
7
Well said! "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? " If the poor and sick need more funds to prevent their illnesses and find cures, let them procure it themselves! "If there are going to die, they should do it, and reduce the surplus population".....
Every dollar in NIH funding pays for itself many times over in both jobs created and the resulting tax revenues. The same cannot be said for Mar-a-Lago golf outings or ludicrous "campaign rallies" held by a sitting President.
The work that comes out of NIH funding--including the Nobel Prize-winning research done by the author of this article, which laid the foundation for targeted cancer therapies--is more than "beneficial." Biomedical research is one area in which America is already unquestionably great. We're the best in the world, by far, and have been for decades, but Mr. Trump has decided to apply his considerable intellect to "fixing" that.
And you're happy to jeopardize our standing to buy a vast, unneeded pile of weapons for the Pentagon. Are you seriously saying the military budget isn't "bloated"?
The work that comes out of NIH funding--including the Nobel Prize-winning research done by the author of this article, which laid the foundation for targeted cancer therapies--is more than "beneficial." Biomedical research is one area in which America is already unquestionably great. We're the best in the world, by far, and have been for decades, but Mr. Trump has decided to apply his considerable intellect to "fixing" that.
And you're happy to jeopardize our standing to buy a vast, unneeded pile of weapons for the Pentagon. Are you seriously saying the military budget isn't "bloated"?
There is no issue here with government efficiency: 80% of the budget goes directly to science and receiving NIH support is brutally competitive - fewer than 20% of excellent projects are funded.
This is an issue of American leadership. Do we want to be the best place in the world for biomedical research, with all the associated benefits of better health care and jobs in biotech and pharma, or do we decide to become provincial and scramble for local support when other countries invest big in science and the future? America first in the world or America first only in America?
This is an issue of American leadership. Do we want to be the best place in the world for biomedical research, with all the associated benefits of better health care and jobs in biotech and pharma, or do we decide to become provincial and scramble for local support when other countries invest big in science and the future? America first in the world or America first only in America?
5
It is amazing to me that a country that spends over 3 trillion dollars a year on health care cannot bring itself to spend one percent of this amount on publicly-funded research leading to new cures and better treatments. Research efforts pay off. Cancer survival rates have been increasing for the past two decades, and our overall life expectancy has been steadily increasing by more than one year each decade. If that’s not money well-spent, I don’t know what is.
286
The goal of this administration and the republican party in general is to reduce the size of government and in turn reduce taxes on the wealthy.
If we can reduce our "surplus" population significantly, we can reduce the amount of government proportionately.
How does creating life saving and life extending science contribute to that goal?
If we can reduce our "surplus" population significantly, we can reduce the amount of government proportionately.
How does creating life saving and life extending science contribute to that goal?
1
My husband is funded by NIH grants. What happens when the NIH gets budget cuts is that they distribute the budget cuts across the board. This means that even people with multiyear contracts that are in the middle of the contracts will get their grants cut by, for instance, 18%. The scientists will then have to find extra grants to cover their salary, materials, post-docs, etc. (no easy feat if the NIH has just had its budget cut 18%). But when you get a new grant you have to have a new project. This means that for the same resources you have to produce more. When NIH grants are given they are tied to specific projects. You can't just get the money and go around doing whatever you want to. In the worst case people will get fired, get pay cuts, and less science will get done. Frankly, this is beyond insulting coming from Trump who works so little that he has plenty of time to go hold tax payer funded ego-rallies for himself.
We need government funded research because the private sector will never pick up the slack. The basic research that is often funded by us as a society is not the sort of thing companies can make money from. We will lose as a society if we stall and handicap our scientific research. We owe just about everything we have to science and scientists.
We need government funded research because the private sector will never pick up the slack. The basic research that is often funded by us as a society is not the sort of thing companies can make money from. We will lose as a society if we stall and handicap our scientific research. We owe just about everything we have to science and scientists.
295
I could not agree more with your perfect take on this situation and how it could impact science and scientists. And your point about the need for government-funded research is spot on.
2
I worked in government funded research during the Reagan years. Trump is merely putting the final touches on.
2
I agree with almost every point you make here. The one exception is that I do not like the term "basic research." This makes it sound simple. It is fundamental research. This phrase emphasizes its importance.
5
This N.I.H cut proposal is alarming, this will have devastating effects on science and technology in the United States as well as the education of the next generation of researchers .Eighty percent of the agency's funding goes to universities and medical centers throughout the country, most of that through grant awards.
According to Joanne Carney, director of government relations at the American Association for the Advancement of Science : "When you see such drastic reductions in federal spending, it discourages students from completing or pursuing STEM degrees," "Those who have already completed their Ph.D.s and are trying to get their first research grants may look overseas. Other countries are going to look more desirable." Even the the National Science Foundation is going to face a cut of 9.8% listed among "other agencies" in the budget document.. The NSF is a key supporter of research in the physical sciences, computer science and the social sciences
What is going on in America? Is the US going to remain as the world leader in medical innovation or some Asian countries are going to take over? The National Institutes of Health supports most of the nation's research on diseases and treatments. The greatest threats to the United States are those presented by infectious diseases, climate change and energy production — none of which can be addressed effectively without scientific research.
According to Joanne Carney, director of government relations at the American Association for the Advancement of Science : "When you see such drastic reductions in federal spending, it discourages students from completing or pursuing STEM degrees," "Those who have already completed their Ph.D.s and are trying to get their first research grants may look overseas. Other countries are going to look more desirable." Even the the National Science Foundation is going to face a cut of 9.8% listed among "other agencies" in the budget document.. The NSF is a key supporter of research in the physical sciences, computer science and the social sciences
What is going on in America? Is the US going to remain as the world leader in medical innovation or some Asian countries are going to take over? The National Institutes of Health supports most of the nation's research on diseases and treatments. The greatest threats to the United States are those presented by infectious diseases, climate change and energy production — none of which can be addressed effectively without scientific research.
46
Dear Headline Writers:
It should be "Why Trump's PROPOSED N.I.H. Cuts Should Worry Us."
Headlines also should be accurate. The headline makes it seem like his cuts are already a fait accompli. They're not. The House of Representatives has the budget authority.
I hope the so far spineless GOP Congress will not give him most of what he proposes.
It should be "Why Trump's PROPOSED N.I.H. Cuts Should Worry Us."
Headlines also should be accurate. The headline makes it seem like his cuts are already a fait accompli. They're not. The House of Representatives has the budget authority.
I hope the so far spineless GOP Congress will not give him most of what he proposes.
15
Trump doesn't know what he is doing. His controllers know even less. Incompetence is too kind a term. Amateur is too gentle.
If anything makes America great, it's our scientific community and the tremendous work they accomplish. The fruits of their efforts create enormous benefits for us and the world. It eliminates human suffering, creates new markets for new products and procedures, draws international talent to set up new businesses here.
Scientific research is tremendously stimulating to the economy and overall wellbeing. But Trump is completely ignorant of this. Maybe that's because he is a woefully ignorant person.
If anything makes America great, it's our scientific community and the tremendous work they accomplish. The fruits of their efforts create enormous benefits for us and the world. It eliminates human suffering, creates new markets for new products and procedures, draws international talent to set up new businesses here.
Scientific research is tremendously stimulating to the economy and overall wellbeing. But Trump is completely ignorant of this. Maybe that's because he is a woefully ignorant person.
285
Mr. Rozenblit - I keep stumbling on your comments. I read them, save their contents, and repost them on Facebook. Thank you for your insight. [email protected]
1
Your President is 70 years old and still blithely quaffs sugar-laden cola with production line burgers. He truly believes China concocted the whole carbon dioxide/atmospheric warming association. Clearly, he is not a man of science.
Fortunately, I suspect he will be impeached well before the fiscal year 2018 appropriation for the N.I.H. will be determined by Congress. Hopefully, the Republican remnants will be sufficiently chastened to eschew any further budgetary whims.
Rest assured, science and reason cannot be overridden by mere bluster and hubris.
Fortunately, I suspect he will be impeached well before the fiscal year 2018 appropriation for the N.I.H. will be determined by Congress. Hopefully, the Republican remnants will be sufficiently chastened to eschew any further budgetary whims.
Rest assured, science and reason cannot be overridden by mere bluster and hubris.
82
Your optimism is comforting, AFG. I hope you are right.
18
But then we would have President Pence who is equally untrustworthy in the support for science department.
2
Many Americans, myself included, cling steadfastly to the hope that this dangerous populist will yet tweet something or otherwise have more dirt uncovered that will lead to impeachment. So many of us are disheartened by the new direction our country seems to be taking. I agree with your latter point on science and reason, however...
1
It would be a mistake to underestimate Trump's distaste for science, and it's no consolation that Congress decides budgets and not the POTUS. The know-nothings are in charge, and they will rip the heart out of any endeavor that calls their superstitious nonsense in question. This is not simply a prophesy--it's also history. Look at the records of James Inhofe and Joe Barton--and those who call climatology and evolution curses from the depths of hell.
BTW, for years, much of my work involved interaction with NIH, a great set of institutes that exemplify the best of America and the best of government.
BTW, for years, much of my work involved interaction with NIH, a great set of institutes that exemplify the best of America and the best of government.
147
Trump's budget is a litany of tragedies unfolding. His attacks on research, medicine, and science represent a new Dark Ages for America and a rejection of Enlightenment values. One of the bright spots across the last decade or so has been the amazing series of medical breakthroughs - new understandings of various diseases, new treatments, new drugs. Each one represents broad partnerships of scientists, physicians, academia and industry working together, and often the glue is the NIH funding. Efforts to address the scourge of Ebola alone have already had successful outcomes. Other diseases including various cancers have had new insights and treatments.
The quiet heroism of all of these scientists, engineers in some cases such as computer software or hardware advances, doctors, health care professionals, and others who have worked tirelessly with little individual acclaim is impressive.
If Congress destroys one of America's treasures - its medical research and community - the stakes are enormously high for the future of this country and the world. It is so painful to watch all of this unfolding due to a single demented leader and politicians who put their party above their country, its citizens' welfare, or investments for the future.
The quiet heroism of all of these scientists, engineers in some cases such as computer software or hardware advances, doctors, health care professionals, and others who have worked tirelessly with little individual acclaim is impressive.
If Congress destroys one of America's treasures - its medical research and community - the stakes are enormously high for the future of this country and the world. It is so painful to watch all of this unfolding due to a single demented leader and politicians who put their party above their country, its citizens' welfare, or investments for the future.
102
Well said! Mr. Trump's budget propses to destroy scientific research, the arts, and public journalism. As you note, in this way, he sends us back to the dark ages. I, for one, do not want to go there.
One would hope in the highly partisan charged political climate organizations such as NIH, NSF and CPB would not be used as mundane line items to achieve budget cuts. The cost of these organizations is small change in a budget and a deficit that are running into many trillions. As Dr. Varmus notes the impact of scientific based work undertaken by these organizations vastly exceeds the dollars spent. They represent America's soft power. I personally know many medical researchers in the top notch hospitals and institutes here in Boston who are grossly underpaid for the long hours they cheerfully dedicate to advancing knowledge and many riddled with college debts. Our government speaks of a national need to produce more STEM workers but clamps the very organizations that help create, sustain and employ many of them. This is a very short sighted approach to cost cutting and let's hope better wisdom will prevail when Congress takes up the proposals. Sadly, our governance is dominated by lawyers, accountants, business types, journalists and other non science professions. Scientists are dismissed as harmless nerds. Politicians offer a lot of platitudes on the importance of science and technology at targeted conferences to captive audiences but these are rarely backed by actions. If Trump's vision is for space colonies and conquest of cancer, he'd better keep a strong scientific community.
37
The goal of this administration is not to build or govern, it is to destroy. And what better way to destroy the strength of a nation than to undermine its ability to search for new knowledge. One of the things that truly made America great was our leadership in the sciences, particularly the biomedical sciences. This administration is an affront to those who quest for knowledge. Make America Great Again, my hat!
63
We're suffering from a shortage of at the minimum 100,000 doctors. China and other countries are moving ahead of us with regards to technological advances. When will our government have this generations Sputnik moment and decide to invest in scientific development.
The growing theme about how others view our country when they come to visit is decay. Was the space race the last great thing that we're going to accomplish. What is it going to take for our government to decide to invest in Americans for a change.
Rome fell because of economic instability caused by inequality, overexpansian and overspending on the military, government corruption and instability, the weakening of the Roman legions as less citizens were willing to serve in the military. Any of this sound familiar.
The failure to invest in infrastructure during the beginning of the recession was a failure that will haunt us moving forward. Now that interest rates are rising such projects while necessary will be much more expensive going forward. Our political leaders have lost grasp of the long view and now seem to only be interested in short-term gains at the expense of the 99%. We need a new FDR.
The growing theme about how others view our country when they come to visit is decay. Was the space race the last great thing that we're going to accomplish. What is it going to take for our government to decide to invest in Americans for a change.
Rome fell because of economic instability caused by inequality, overexpansian and overspending on the military, government corruption and instability, the weakening of the Roman legions as less citizens were willing to serve in the military. Any of this sound familiar.
The failure to invest in infrastructure during the beginning of the recession was a failure that will haunt us moving forward. Now that interest rates are rising such projects while necessary will be much more expensive going forward. Our political leaders have lost grasp of the long view and now seem to only be interested in short-term gains at the expense of the 99%. We need a new FDR.
32
Expect the doctor shortage to get worse, now that entire nationalities feel unsafe in America.
3
Part of the problem is what might be called the "Martin Niemöller effect": scientists are not very political by nature and tend only to react to political events when their own interests are immediately affected.
A couple of months back some of us tried to convince the Executive committee of the Association for Computational Linguistics to issue a general statement in defense of science, and against the anti-science initiatives that were obviously coming. They declined to do so. US-based members of the ACL frequently depend on NSF or DARPA funding for their work, and no doubt if and when Trump takes an axe to those (even though DARPA is part of the military, much of what they fund is not weapons-related, so I doubt that program is "safe"), they will probably start making noises.
But that's why it is best called the "Niemöller effect": don't stand up until you are directly affected --- at which point it may well be too late.
A couple of months back some of us tried to convince the Executive committee of the Association for Computational Linguistics to issue a general statement in defense of science, and against the anti-science initiatives that were obviously coming. They declined to do so. US-based members of the ACL frequently depend on NSF or DARPA funding for their work, and no doubt if and when Trump takes an axe to those (even though DARPA is part of the military, much of what they fund is not weapons-related, so I doubt that program is "safe"), they will probably start making noises.
But that's why it is best called the "Niemöller effect": don't stand up until you are directly affected --- at which point it may well be too late.
Budgets cuts for science research in general, and for medical innovations in particular are, of course, essential. But crooked lying Trump is an uneducated man with a mansion-sized ego, impulsive and brutish in his designs. If he were a statesman, and recognizing how little he knows about the world, he would surround himself with folks smarter than himself; trouble is, a narcissist couldn't tolerate anybody making shadow to his own self-importance. My question to you: how can you ask from this fraudster to give what he doesn't have? What we need to do is oust him, send him packing, before he completes his irresponsible task of destroying what took us so long to build.
The key benefit of NIH funding is clearly treatments and cures that are critical to our health and well-being. However, there is also a strong economic multiplier effect of NIH funds (estimated at better than 2:1) that produces tax revenues that flow back into the government. As Dr. Varmus notes, an additional critical role is supporting the development of young scientists - our 'seed corn' for future discoveries and innovations. This is an exciting time in medical research in terms of new technologies and the ideas that spring from results those technologies generate. It would be very unfortunate if we (further) discouraged young scientists at this point. These are committed and incredibly bright young minds that we the public benefit from at what are really bargain basement prices. They do this both for the love of the science and wanting to make a difference in people's lives and we all benefit from their dedication. While hard to estimate, the future costs of diminishing our biomedical research seed corn are likely to be very high in terms of treatments and cures that don't get developed.
12
Although many of Trumps cuts, such as those to EPA and programs related to climate change are ideologically driven, I suspect that reduction in the NIH funding is more about how to fill the huge budget gap which will exist when he does what he cares about most-cut taxes for the wealthy and more military spending. Nothing else matters to him. Add to that his disdain for considered thought and the advice of experts and it is sadly clear why the NIH is a target.
23
National security resides with the NIH even more than the military. Populations, economies, and generations of expertise can be decimated, and have been historically by a lack of expertise and preparedness. The GOP ideologues exist outside of practical realities. All that makes this country great undercut by the narrow minded and under informed.
51
Scientists at the N.I.H. and the world over are sounding alarm bells about the imminent threat we face from MRSA "superbugs" which will no longer respond to our current arsenal of antibiotics and in the worst case scenario could see millions dying from minor infections we thought we had vanquished. The scientists at the N.I.H. need every penny they can get and more to carry out the research to counter this and other threats to worldwide public health. Whether concerning climate change or medicine (i.e. vaccines are dangerous) and despite being a "germaphobic," our Narcissist-in Chief apparently considers warnings from scientists in all spheres to be nothing more than "fake news." Somebody better tell Donald that no amount of compulsive "hand-washing " will save him if the superbugs really take over.
29
No where is it more apparent that expertise matters than in science. It takes a long sustained commitment to the pursuit of knowledge. That's why what scientists do for society is not easily replaced. An 18% cut at NIH, not to mention an outwardly antiscience president and federal administration, will literally kill the future of American science. That will caus long term harm to our ability to compete globally. It's so short sighted.
It is telling to look at the number of comments turned in on this article vs the numbers inspired by the latest tweetstorm from our so-called president. It reflects the positioning of such stories -- the coming Alzheimer's "bubble", the Great Barrier Reef die-off, renewed deforestation in the Amazon, the restrictions on EPA data. They are off to the side in the American psyche, outside of the sensational tweet-and-response cycle, and deal with complicated subjects in need of nuanced discussion. Yet these "side-line" topics speak to the grim realities that are undermining human societies world-wide. Like Trump voters soon to be without healthcare, many people find it hard to see how long-term investments like research and data collection are important -- until their absence is experienced at the doctor's office or while wading through flood waters.
17
The fight to increase or even preserve current levels of science funding will be fierce for the next few years at least. We have a willfully ignorant and dishonest president, a vice-president who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago and various cabinet members who espouse beliefs such as homosexuality being a "choice" amenable to "conversion therapy" and that global warming is "a hoax." Good luck getting money for truth and scientific advancement from that crew.
64
Civilizations fail when they favor short-term gains over long-term investments.
Today the US wants to build aircraft carriers (a weapon ideally suited for an ocean war in 1942) while China builds a solar-energy industry.
Today the US wants to build aircraft carriers (a weapon ideally suited for an ocean war in 1942) while China builds a solar-energy industry.
206
The business culture of this nation is so geared toward quarterly gains that there is no concept of investments in science or even infrastructure. The country is entirely run by speculators and spin doctors. I honestly don't see any realistic hope, no matter what stories we tell ourselves.
3
A fruit fly will have a longer lifespan in a shooting war than today's aircraft carriers. Just like in 1941 that fact was clear to anyone who was paying attention. We will, learn the same lesson again with a few of our 11 carrier groups- you can't just have a carrier, you need another twenty or so ships to get close to protecting them, but a swarm of million dollar missiles will take out that multibillion dollar carrier in the first day of the fight.
Pearl Harbor was a failure from the Japanese perspective because the aircraft carriers were not there that day. Battleships were obsolete. Carriers are now for a shooting war. They make admirals feed good, but they are not weapons of war.
Pearl Harbor was a failure from the Japanese perspective because the aircraft carriers were not there that day. Battleships were obsolete. Carriers are now for a shooting war. They make admirals feed good, but they are not weapons of war.
Trump's treasonous attack on our civilization must be thwarted, while Trump and his cabal must be brought to trial for treason, sedition, and wanton amoral vandalism.
12
In past Administrations when they proposed their budgets, you would generally hear some comments from the congressional side about what’s good, needs work, and are “non-starters”. Well so far this Republican Congress has been “on mute”. I’m convinced they’re absolutely frightened of Trump and are waiting for some “sign” to come down from the heavens to give them the courage to say “NO”. Well, that’s not going to happen anytime soon, so…..
In the meantime, the media, FBI investigations, town hall meetings, demonstrations, and calls to Congress are the only avenue we have now to get Congress’ attention. Hopefully sooner before we’re all doomed.
In the meantime, the media, FBI investigations, town hall meetings, demonstrations, and calls to Congress are the only avenue we have now to get Congress’ attention. Hopefully sooner before we’re all doomed.
6
The silver lining to this budget proposal is the emphasis on reducing institutional overheads (see latest issue of Science magazine). This are additional funds given to an institution to 'manage' the awarded research funding. The overhead amounts are not uniform across institutions. They range from 40-99% (higher at some institutions) of the direct research funds. One reason offered for this discrepancy is the differential cost of management across the nation. Confoundingly, this differential cost leads to a 55% overhead for the Univ of California, San Diego and 90% at the Scripps Research Institute, which is only blocks away! There is more than anecdotal evidence that only a fraction of the overhead is directed at providing better research infrastructure.
A wiser move by the Trump administration would be to keep NIH funding levels the same, but to cut back institutional overheads by 20%, or even institute a cap on the overhead levels. This would increase the NIH payline across the board. More NIH funds will be directed at medical science research. Institutions that cannot manage funds well will cede to those that can.
A wiser move by the Trump administration would be to keep NIH funding levels the same, but to cut back institutional overheads by 20%, or even institute a cap on the overhead levels. This would increase the NIH payline across the board. More NIH funds will be directed at medical science research. Institutions that cannot manage funds well will cede to those that can.
8
I believe your cynicism is unjustified. Overhead is used to pay for the facilities and administrative costs that enable research: electricity, plumbing, water, laboratory space, meeting rooms, ventilation, accountants, purchasing agents, human resource staff, etc. At universities (like UCSD) these costs are shared with the instructional mission of the university (i.e., tuition dollars), while research institutions (like Scripps) do not have the luxury of distributing costs that way. That does not mean that research institutions don't conduct extremely valuable research, or that they mismanage the overhead funds they receive.
1
I have had the privilege for the last two weeks of hearing research studies and results at a major university about the work of their scientists on elucidating mechanisms of disease, especially cancer and infections, and developing chemistry to deal with cures.
These scientists are truly dedicated to solve some of the difficult problems that face us, as antibiotics become less effective, and different approaches to cancer show tantalizing promise.
Most of their work is funded by NIH.
That Trump, and Mick, and the generally anti-science Republicans don't understand this, and furthermore, don't care, is a shame and a scandal. Losing four years of research will be devastating..it will be hard to catch up on the lost momentum.
What is wrong with these people? Why are they so intent on undoing so much progress in science, the environment? Just to reward the rich? To build a few more aircraft carriers?
The Koch brothers, Roger Stone, President-in-the shadows Bannon: do they think they can't have health crisis?
If I were mean-spirited, I would be tempted to wish a dread disease on the lot.
These scientists are truly dedicated to solve some of the difficult problems that face us, as antibiotics become less effective, and different approaches to cancer show tantalizing promise.
Most of their work is funded by NIH.
That Trump, and Mick, and the generally anti-science Republicans don't understand this, and furthermore, don't care, is a shame and a scandal. Losing four years of research will be devastating..it will be hard to catch up on the lost momentum.
What is wrong with these people? Why are they so intent on undoing so much progress in science, the environment? Just to reward the rich? To build a few more aircraft carriers?
The Koch brothers, Roger Stone, President-in-the shadows Bannon: do they think they can't have health crisis?
If I were mean-spirited, I would be tempted to wish a dread disease on the lot.
35
The proposed NIH cuts are so obviously crazy (as even R. Luettgen admits) that one must question not just the competence and decency of the present Administration, but even their sanity.
21
This is what happens when small brains run our country, when men of vision and insight are cast aside for those who are self serving narcissists and surround themselves with "yes" men and women too. This requires that the scientific community speak up loud and strong and play politics on all fronts and use all methods of correct this impulsive stupid idea.
18
For the spoiled brat man-child our electoral system has chosen to be president, an imperial, and imperious, attitude prevails: if it doesn't enrich my coffers or bring me glory, why spend a nickel on it?
19
Sadly, Trump doesn't have the attention span to read and understand this OpEd piece and his advisors have no incentive to do so.
7
We live in a time of anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-empirical sentiment. Instead, we praise and admire people of great "faith" or "belief". There is a war on science taking place, and until THAT problem is faced squarely, we will confuse a skirmish for the real battle taking place.
15
Dr. Varmus is correct when he states that continuing to financially support the NIH is not a partisan issue. We all, no matter what our political leaning, benefit from this institution. To marginalize it would, like the Republican "health care" bill, put lives at risk.
6
As the article says, this is money that directly supports actual research in laboratories across the United States; discoveries that will fuel the hope and the future of the world. We should be spurring this work on with everything we can muster. A cut like this expresses only despair, like cutting our wrists.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”― Isaac Asimov
Facts and reality do have a liberal bias.
Facts and reality do have a liberal bias.
90
Funding for science and engineering will keep a lot of undergraduate and graduate students focussed on topics outside of the entertainment section of the internet. But universities have also become very administrative heavy and a portion of a NIH grant goes towards sustaining this administrative beast. A a person who worked for a PhD program 30 years back with NIH/NSF funding and is currently funding for college for the next generation understands the impact of funding cuts.
1
I spent virtually my entire career as a research administrator working for universities funded by nearly all the government agencies. Most recently my experience involved NIH grants and I watched as scientists developed deeper understandings of how diseases actually work. In cancer research the efforts are just beginning to pay off with new cures. Just two years ago, after my wife was diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer, there were just a couple of chemotherapies available for her. Now, there are literally dozens of clinical trials underway that show promise in defeating one of the most intractable cancers we face.
This would have been impossible without the basic research funded by federal agencies. Private companies, relying as they do on profit, simply will not fund the level of basic research that is needed to make this kind of progress. And the same is true no matter which field of science you look at.
These scientists don't spend years going to school and doing the drudge work of lab experiments in order to get rich. They do it for the love of knowledge and at remarkably low wages to boot. With the Trump budget, we can expect to return to the stone age. Someday, consumers are going to ask the question "where are our scientists with the solutions to our problems"? And the answer will be "they've gone into other fields in order to support their families and no longer do research". And the problems I see coming our way threaten our very existence.
This would have been impossible without the basic research funded by federal agencies. Private companies, relying as they do on profit, simply will not fund the level of basic research that is needed to make this kind of progress. And the same is true no matter which field of science you look at.
These scientists don't spend years going to school and doing the drudge work of lab experiments in order to get rich. They do it for the love of knowledge and at remarkably low wages to boot. With the Trump budget, we can expect to return to the stone age. Someday, consumers are going to ask the question "where are our scientists with the solutions to our problems"? And the answer will be "they've gone into other fields in order to support their families and no longer do research". And the problems I see coming our way threaten our very existence.
14
While arguing with Trump and his acolytes is likely futile, there are ways to pose the value of science to Congress and the public. Number one is saving American lives, by the hundreds of thousands to millions, based on the historical record of evidence-driven reduction in most of the top ten killer diseases. Number two is return on investment. America's science budget has added many multiples of its cost to thriving commercial enterprise in pharma, software, electronics, aerospace and agriculture. Number three is national defense. WW2 was fought by soldiers, sailors and aviators but won by scientists and engineers working on cryptography, radar, sonar, aircraft design, computation and nuclear physics. America still leads the world in most sectors of science but that status is threatened by gains in other countries, particularly China. Would becoming a second rate scientific power make America great again?
5
Hard to believe Donld Trump plans to slash so many budget on Rearch and Development, wheras in such place China is catching up by investing billions of dollars. Science investment is more important than military potency.
6
It is one of my memes: Making China great again. Trump and the GOP have hit on a sure-fire way to assure Asian ascendancy over the 20-40 years. Maybe 5-20.
2
Unquestionably this is frightening, but there isn't anyone like Mr Arlene Specter in the Congress any more to champion the NIH budget. Dr Varmus laments about the cuts to extramural funding and resulting impact on academic researchers and universities. But, in reality a large portion of the NIH budget is spent on the intramural program and its clinical center where many research programs are not necessarily rigorously peer reviewed. I am aware of many researchers at the NIH intramural program who seldom publish and aren't doing any worthwhile research (some are outstanding of course). I don't have a great sense on the ROI on the intramural programs and related giant bureaucracy.
This is incorrect; as Dr Varmus notes, only about 10% of the NIH budget supports the intramural program which this commentator derides. And while there are slackers in all institutions, please recall that NIH Director Fancis Collins, Nobel Laureates like Julius Axelrod and Dr Varmus, and other less well known but dynamic and ground-breaking scientists whose trainees have also made major contributions to knowledge, like Ira Pastan, have been intramural NIH scientists, some for most or all of their illustrious careers. And that's just a short list off the top of my head, without an internet search.
A dramatic decrease in NIH funding is a mistake and targeted increases would be helpful. It is also true that there could be substantial realignment and reductions in duplication which would NIH the focus on core mission and achieving priorities. For example the proposal for the Fogarty Center would have no real effect on the mission of NIH.
The gutting of the NIH started with King Ronnie & entire departments in biomedical research during the 1980's folded overnight. The goal was to gut public funding to give Big Pharma & private science-based research a boost by not competing with "bad" government-funded research. Since then the U.S. policy has been to give minimal funding to research especially if there is little commercial payoff. As a result, other countries are picking up the slack, funding their scientists & conducting more impressive research. Look at research institutions in the U.S. & see how few U.S. citizens are working there. The majority of scientists are from Asia. Disgraceful but decades in the making.
5
While Trump is handing the government to third world Russia, Congress has been handing our scientific leadership to China for decades. Ask any professor in the US of Chinese origin and they will tell you labs are better and research money flows freely in China, while scientists seeking US government funds are squeezed and in a constant treadmill of grant application competing for scraps. The Chinese professors fulfill their minimum obligations here in the US so their families can live here where the air is still clean and the colleges are merit based. Then they spend summers and semesters in China where they have stables of grad students and post docs and tons of funding to be able to publish in world class journals. The US only scientists are at a disheartening disadvantage. But, hey, US scientists can stop working so hard for nothing and just do server maintenance at Google for twice the salary and half the work, and at least as much respect.
4
I fear our federal government has fallen prey to "locked in syndrome" (LIS), a condition where consciousness may continue but motor activity does not except for eye movements usually. This most often follows an injury to the brainstem from any of a range of causes. The person is in there but cannot be effectively reached.
Open-ended scientific questions cannot be asked in a government ruled by dogma because the possible conclusions include results which destroy dogmatic thinking such as "climate change is anthropomorphic, devastating in effect and now upon us".
The major breakthroughs in science have come about when paradigm shifts forced us to cast out our old beliefs. Consider the concept of invisible agents causing disease instead of bad humors (the germ theory), the idea of uncertainty driving the fundamental nature of matter (quantum mechanics), the evidence for extinction by meteorite impact or evolution changing our biome instead of actions by divine guidance.
The fruits of scientific effort depend upon a willingness to look for them.
Open-ended scientific questions cannot be asked in a government ruled by dogma because the possible conclusions include results which destroy dogmatic thinking such as "climate change is anthropomorphic, devastating in effect and now upon us".
The major breakthroughs in science have come about when paradigm shifts forced us to cast out our old beliefs. Consider the concept of invisible agents causing disease instead of bad humors (the germ theory), the idea of uncertainty driving the fundamental nature of matter (quantum mechanics), the evidence for extinction by meteorite impact or evolution changing our biome instead of actions by divine guidance.
The fruits of scientific effort depend upon a willingness to look for them.
9
Dr. Varmus, one of our finest researchers and administrators lets us know that that where the indiscriminate budget ax lands is important. This is nowhere more true than at NIH. Here's hoping that the few good people left in Congress will demonstrate their sensibilities and override this travesty.
4
Although the drug firms claim that they need high prices to justify their research, much of the cutting edge research is done at NIH or as a result of NIH funding to US organizatoins.
13
What the Administration fails to realize is that the best scientists will gravitate towards economies that both value their work and are willing to fund it. The U.S. currently attracts the finest minds in the world due to its established research universities and hospitals.
Corporations long-ago outsourced basic research to government-funded institutions. Many of the discoveries end up in their products and on their bottom lines. Cutting back on research funding will prompt an exodus that will damage the country in countless ways that will not be apparent for many years.
The shortsightedness of this is breathtaking but not surprising. When voters ask for the government to be "run like a business" this is what you get.
Corporations long-ago outsourced basic research to government-funded institutions. Many of the discoveries end up in their products and on their bottom lines. Cutting back on research funding will prompt an exodus that will damage the country in countless ways that will not be apparent for many years.
The shortsightedness of this is breathtaking but not surprising. When voters ask for the government to be "run like a business" this is what you get.
8
The indication is that the cuts would be catastrophic, but the article makes no mention of any accomplishments that would not have been made, but for this funding. I can think of no disease that has been cured in my lifetime. Funding for medical research sounds great on paper, but, are they actually accomplishing anything that benefits people at all?
1
td Have you made the slightest attempt to research what the NIH has done? It's not like it's a lab. It funds zillions of labs etc. It sounds more like you don't want to believe it could do any good, much less enormous good.
4
td See Jack Hartman and others below.
1
A few examples:
In 1970, the 5 year survival rate for child cancers was 58%; today it is well over 80%. Overall cancer survival rates were about 50% at that time, and are over 66% today. For example, research in the late 90's has dramatically improved melanoma and lymphoblastic leukemia survival.
In the same period, infant mortality has declined from about 20 to about 5 in 1000 live births, due to public health research, and treatments for neonatal lung development.
In the 50's, 90% of people with type I diabetes went blind within 25 years of diagnosis, and a third died. Today, less than 4% are blind, and 7% die within 25 years.
HIV has gone from an immediately fatal condition to a treatable, albeit chronic one.
There are thousands of studies in the works for these and other conditions. A few will be blockbusters, many will not work out (if we knew what would work, we wouldn't have to do the research), and many will provide incremental advances that over the years will continue to improve our health.
In 1970, the 5 year survival rate for child cancers was 58%; today it is well over 80%. Overall cancer survival rates were about 50% at that time, and are over 66% today. For example, research in the late 90's has dramatically improved melanoma and lymphoblastic leukemia survival.
In the same period, infant mortality has declined from about 20 to about 5 in 1000 live births, due to public health research, and treatments for neonatal lung development.
In the 50's, 90% of people with type I diabetes went blind within 25 years of diagnosis, and a third died. Today, less than 4% are blind, and 7% die within 25 years.
HIV has gone from an immediately fatal condition to a treatable, albeit chronic one.
There are thousands of studies in the works for these and other conditions. A few will be blockbusters, many will not work out (if we knew what would work, we wouldn't have to do the research), and many will provide incremental advances that over the years will continue to improve our health.
3
Thank you for your clear description of the impact of even temporary cuts to research funding. People unfamiliar with the role of the NIH, NSF and other federal agencies in scientific research and training might assume that the country can simply wait out the current political climate and re-start support for science in 4 or 8 years. The disruption to the infrastructure and training pipeline will not be quickly overcome, however. It takes many years for scientists to gain the skills and knowledge that permit them to be at the forefront of advancing understanding. If we lose the young people in the pipeline, we lose our future scientists.
9
These cuts and the budget blueprint are reflective of the long term goal of Republican conservatives, which is to shrink government to only protect people and property and to leave everything else, including scientific research and environmental health to the free market.
7
"A presidential budget request is a proposal, not a done deal."
This very incomplete budget proposal is not even really a proposal. There is too much left out.
It is more a trial balloon. Trump's Administration seems to be a constant conflict among factions. This is the trial balloon of one faction.
A trial balloon is used even before the opening salvo in serious negotiations. Trump's proposal is so incomplete, he isn't even at that stage yet.
Yes, this trial balloon must be shot down. However, it ought not to be dignified as more than it is.
Ridicule is the best attack on it.
This very incomplete budget proposal is not even really a proposal. There is too much left out.
It is more a trial balloon. Trump's Administration seems to be a constant conflict among factions. This is the trial balloon of one faction.
A trial balloon is used even before the opening salvo in serious negotiations. Trump's proposal is so incomplete, he isn't even at that stage yet.
Yes, this trial balloon must be shot down. However, it ought not to be dignified as more than it is.
Ridicule is the best attack on it.
90
I agree. These cuts, one hopes, were put in Trump's budget proffer to serve merely as obvious points of compromise, to detract attention from the major requirements. If anything, NIH's budget should be vastly increased.
125
How does it feel to be a bargaining chip? To know that clean air and water and world-class research are just more cards in the hands of dunces like Trump and Ryan?
So if this is an obvious point of compromise, Richard, what has to be given up to save us from this mean-spirited attack on scientific research endeavors? Less military spending maybe? Is that the goal?
There has been an attrition in NIH funding for years already by Congressional Republicans. Cutting funding, or changing funding priorities (as has happened in addictions treatment research), means established researchers must move on to other endeavors, taking their grad students and post-docs with them. This sets back research in a field even if funding is restored subsequently - there are then no trained researchers to do the work.
There has been an attrition in NIH funding for years already by Congressional Republicans. Cutting funding, or changing funding priorities (as has happened in addictions treatment research), means established researchers must move on to other endeavors, taking their grad students and post-docs with them. This sets back research in a field even if funding is restored subsequently - there are then no trained researchers to do the work.
12
Thank you for a post that I strongly agree with. It is good to see the return of a conservative on these comment boards who used to inspire respect.
7
The budget proposal makes clear the priorities of the new administration, and it is not the health nor well being of the American people.
We liven a time of growing concerns of pandemics and strains of infections a diseases that are resistant to antibiotics. With modern travel these spread so much more quickly than diseases of the past. We are all in danger when this is not addressed.
Public health is a major concern. With the new health plan tossing millions off the roles of the insured, meaning less access to care, we will have more sick people in the general population, more sick people on the subway.
It is hard to imagine why or how anyone of conscience could make these cuts.
We liven a time of growing concerns of pandemics and strains of infections a diseases that are resistant to antibiotics. With modern travel these spread so much more quickly than diseases of the past. We are all in danger when this is not addressed.
Public health is a major concern. With the new health plan tossing millions off the roles of the insured, meaning less access to care, we will have more sick people in the general population, more sick people on the subway.
It is hard to imagine why or how anyone of conscience could make these cuts.
230
"It is hard to imagine why or how anyone of conscience could make these cuts." That's because there is no one with conscience in the Trump administration or the Republican Party, no one with the intelligence to think of the consequences of his actions and no one who has any real concern for the country.
5
Republicans blinded by an ideology focused solely on smaller government and lower taxes believe and will clearly state that conscience has no role to play in their decisions - except of course when it comes to abortion, gay marriage and a wide array of other social conservative hot button issues. How they sleep with such hypocrisy is beyond me.
There is little evidence so far that "public health" is a concern of this so called president or the Republican congress.
1