Bush proposes raise in health research funds

President Bush's call Tuesday night for Congress to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health has left some experts wondering where the money will come from. Penn Professor Arthur Caplan, director of the University's Center for Bioethics, applauded Bush's move. But he warned that the National Science Foundation -- which, unlike the NIH, funds research in the non-biological fields -- could end up being penalized, damaging all research. "It's certainly a good move to invest more in health care right now," Caplan said. "It absolutely should not come at the expense of the NSF." The NIH is second only to the Department of Defense in funding research and development. According to Robert Field, director of the health policy program at the University of the Sciences, Penn's standing with the NIH puts it in a position to further benefit from Bush's proposal. "The rich get richer," Field said. "Since Penn has a great track record, it would make a likely beneficiary." Penn is currently second in the nation in NIH funding and received over $290 million in Fiscal Year 1999 from the federal agency. Don Ralbovsky, a spokesman for the NIH, could not determine how next year's budget would affect the University, should it pass. "My sense is that we really couldn't, this early in the budget process, determine the impact to individual institutions," Ralbovsky said. In recent years, due in part to the blossoming fields of genomics and AIDS research, the NIH budget has grown significantly. Bush has promised to double the NIH budget by 2003. In Fiscal Year 2000, the NIH dispensed close to $13 billion in grants, while the NSF distributed less than $4 billion. Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, has been leading the charge on Capitol Hill to increase basic science funding. Boehlert questioned Bush's intentions at a conference last month, cautioning that the president's proposed 13.8 percent increase in NIH funding is not fair to other agencies, including the NSF and the Department of Energy. "A cursory look at the numbers certainly gives one the feeling that things may be a little out of whack," Boehlert said, pointing out that the NIH could be "eating up a disproportionate share of the federal budget." Caplan warned that reducing the NSF's share of the federal budget would be an unwise move. "It makes no sense to develop your upper body but have very weak legs," he said. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a very bad strategy." With regard to the entire industry of scientific research, Caplan said he advocated increasing funds allocated to both the physical and biological sciences. "I'd rather see us take that money out of defense... and out of the tax cut," Caplan said. "This ought to be 13 percent across the board." He predicted that should the NSF end up losing, it would change the academic environment. "You will get some nasty back-biting if somebody thinks the war on cancer will go further by not investing in the next organic chemistry research building," Caplan said. While Bush has not yet revealed his plans for the NSF, his administration is firmly committed to his NIH proposal. "This budget funds the president's priorities," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "There will always be those who will have critiques of different programs." While few question Bush's commitment to health research, Caplan signaled his uncertainty towards Bush's stance with regard to other research. "He is supportive of health care," Caplan said. "I'm not quite as sure about his support of basic science."