Proposed NIH funding cuts would hurt health science for years
President Donald Trump has proposed an 18.8 percent percent cut in the National Institutes of Health annual budget. Unless a bipartisan Congress has the wisdom to override this ill-advised budget reduction strategy, the impact on health science will be devastating for years to come.
It is important to understand why even a few years of reductions would have long-term adverse consequences on health care innovation and discovery in the United States.
The NIH is essential to America’s health care research enterprise because its $32 billion annual budget primes our research and development efforts with early-stage funding to universities, medical schools, hospitals and research institutes.
These taxpayer dollars pay at least a portion of the salaries of scientists, research assistants and advanced trainees. The remainder pays for equipment, supplies, reagents and infrastructure to conduct the work.
A common misconception is that institutions profit from receipt of NIH grants. This is simply not true — grants never fully cover the costs of the work.
NIH-funded discoveries that promise to improve human health are passed on to biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries for further development at a cost far exceeding the government’s initial investment.
Occasionally, royalties and other payments are made from industry to hospitals and universities. These hardly ever exceed the aggregate costs of conducting the research.
Research ideas funded by the NIH are high-risk, high-reward. If they were low-risk, high-reward, venture capitalists and major pharmaceutical companies would willingly and aggressively invest from the outset.
Think of it this way: Because innovative science is tentative by its very nature, our government cuts the risk of uncertainty by funding research not yet worthy of the large investment required by industry to bring a discovery to market.
The result of this partnership between government, university and industry is better outcomes and cures for diseases such as cancer, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, premature birth and many others. It has been estimated that nearly 50 percent of all Food and Drug Administration drug approvals depend on government-funded laboratories conducting early-stage, basic research that then enables drug discovery.
If we reduce NIH funding, we will choke off the American innovation pipeline at its vital source. Fewer discoveries will move from universities to industry.
Funding reductions will limit training opportunities for the next generation of scientists — those who will not only work for universities, but also biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. You can see how the system begins to collapse on itself.
Countries all over the world envy the sophistication and productivity of the American biomedical research enterprise. It should be a source of extraordinary national pride, not a target for budget constraint, particularly at a time of extraordinary scientific and technological promise.
The NIH is not perfect, but our American health care discovery process is not broken.
We can make it better by adopting many of the tenets espoused in the 21st Century Cures Act passed by Congress last year. This forward-thinking legislation called for fewer regulations, focused investments in highvalue research areas and expansion of NIH funding.
Historically, the NIH has benefited from bipartisan support from Congress. Some of its most ardent supporters have included Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, who in 2015 famously called for doubling the NIH budget.
In fact, Gingrich declared that reductions in government financing for basic research is irresponsible and shortsighted. Congress must rally around this inspired bipartisan spirit of support for the NIH as federal budget deliberations continue.