ACT for NIH Announces New Advisory Comittee Members
Congress returns to work today after a 2-week recess, and a top priority for House of Representatives and Senate Republican leaders is reconciling their versions of a largely symbolic but politically sensitive budget plan. Many research advocates are watching the machinations closely.
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) made an extraordinary pitch to his one-time colleagues this week as they head into tense government funding negotiations this summer. If they want to secure increases in defense spending, he said, they should dramatically increase funding for biomedical research -- and put it all on the nation's credit card.
No one who lived through the 1990s would have suspected that one day people would look back on the period as a golden age of bipartisan cooperation. But in some important ways, it was. Amid the policy fights that followed the Republican victories of 1994, President Bill Clinton and the new majorities in Congress reached one particularly good deal: doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health.
The current budget and appropriations process coupled with a lack of consensus among policymakers on how to address our long-term fiscal challenges makes it seemingly impossible to deliver the level of funding for biomedical research that the American public overwhelmingly supports.
At a time when medical advances are poised to provide extraordinary breakthroughs, it is disconcerting that funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the main supporter of biomedical research, has declined so precipitously.
Sustained increases to the NIH budget are necessary to close our nation’s innovation deficit.
Yale researchers have been forced to ask a half-billion dollar question: What will happen to research funding from the federal government?
There’s a well-understood correlation that as the economy of a country improves, so the health of its citizens improves.