They just finished doubling (corrupt) NIH funding over the last five years
- From: "TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Aug 2005 11:34:07 -0700
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8866572/
Vanderbilt sees success in battle for NIH funding
By Roy Moore
Nashville Business Journal
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET Aug. 7, 2005
Vanderbilt University quickly has climbed the ranks of academic
recipients of National Institutes of Health funding, but as overall
growth for the federal program stalls, the Nashville school likely will
see increased competition for D.C.'s dollars.
Competition already is heating up as the federal government trims
number of awards and applications soar. Kei Koizumi, director of the
R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, says most institutes in the biomedical research
field are looking at a success rate of one in four for their grant
applications.
NIH funding across Tennessee grew by just 2 percent last year, half the
national average, federal figures show. The $410.6 million the state
received includes research - the largest at $373.8 million - and
training grants, fellowships and other awards.
"It does become more of a zero-sum game," Koizumi says. "Some
universities will be able to eat other people's lunch. Of course it
means there's got to be losers, people who get less money, so it sets
up a pretty intense competition."
Vanderbilt has fended off that trend. Funding at the school soared 10.2
percent last fiscal year to $227 million, pushing the school up two
spots to 15th place among academic centers. Such growth mirrors the
free spending days between 1998 and 2003, bipartisan support of NIH's
program doubled its budget. However, budget constraints have started
cutting into future growth and this year's budget isn't expected to
even keep up with inflation. The House has approved growth of 0.5
percent, while the Senate supports a 3.7 percent increase - differences
that must be reconciled, Koizumi says.
"They just finished doubling NIH funding over the last five years, so
many in Congress feel they received the increase and now it's time to
stake stock," says Angela Sharpe, deputy director for health policy at
The Consortium of Social Science Associations. "Because of the budget
deficits, there's not a lot of money available, in their eyes."
NIH funding is key for researchers at universities. The program is the
second-largest supporter of research and development in the federal
government after the Department of Defense and is the single largest
source of research and development funding for universities and
colleges with medical schools.
"Because federal funding is the driving force in advancing biomedical
research in the U.S, a reduction in funds available for research could
slow the development of promising scientific advancement," says Dr.
James Leyda, director of corporate development at Cumberland Emerging
Technologies.
Koizumi calls the era of slower growth "the new reality" that will last
as long as the deficits do, barring unlikely cuts to defense and
entitlement programs or tax hikes.
As the number of projects funded decline for a second consecutive year
and the surge in the number of applications continues, the success rate
will continue to fall. According to Washington, D.C.-based AAAS, NIH
projects a success rate of 21 percent, the fifth straight decline from
2001's high of 32 percent.
Despite this trend, Vanderbilt has seen remarkable success with the
total number of awards rising 6 percent last year to 554.
At Vanderbilt, faculty members develop their own proposals and apply
for funds from various sources, including the NIH and National Science
Foundation. The university has offices and infrastructure to support
facility when applying for grants.
NIH funding depends entirely on the quality of the research and
Vanderbilt has aggressively recruited top scientists, says Michael
Schoenfeld, Vanderbilt's vice chancellor for public affairs. Some
brought their funding with them; others start projects that attract NIH
funding. The school also has invested in facilities and worked to
strengthen collaboration efforts between disciplines, such as its
Alliance for Nanoscience for work in nanotechnology.
Koizumi says construction of such biomedical research communities was
common at universities, but schools now find filling those buildings
with research projects harder than they expected. Now the hot space is
biodefense, which is expected to see a 6 percent to 7 percent increase
next year.
Sharpe, whose D.C.-based organization supports social and behavioral
scientists, says the smaller schools and social/behavioral scientists
shouldn't lose out in the NIH funding fight. Instead, she believes
funding will go the best proposals.
That should benefit Vanderbilt, which has the infrastructure to ensure
its seat at the table. But the school will likely face more competition
as other research universities lobby vigorously for more funding.
However, given the Department of Health and Human Services' recent
fulfillment of a five-year commitment to double the NIH budget, a
subsequent drop in the percentage of overall grant funding is not
surprising.
"We're very concerned about cutbacks. We probably won't see an actual
cut," Schoenfeld says. "From year to year, even under the most
pessimistic projections, funding for NIH will go up very slightly but
the increase won't keep up with inflation."
******
More money for corrupt NIH teaming with conflicts of interest. Is that
good business?
TC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Natural Hygiene
- Next by Date: corporate welfare from NIH
- Previous by thread: Science, business a bad mix at NIH
- Next by thread: Re: They just finished doubling (corrupt) NIH funding over the last five years
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
