Advanced Search
Seeking a Cure for Funding Cuts
As a biology student, I’ve been keeping an eye on the news surrounding the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research. Because the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction was unable to reach a budget proposal, Congress will be required to make $1.2 trillion in cuts across government programs, including the NIH. However, scientists aren’t the only ones who should be worried about these cuts.
NIH is the largest single funder of medical research in the world. For over 60 years, medical research made possible by NIH grants has contributed greatly to advancements in health. The Institute has been a key player in making this country a leader in medical science.
Here are some examples. Since World War II, the death rate due to heart disease is 60% lower, and the death rate due to stroke is 70% lower. In the last 15 years, cancer death rates have dropped 11.2% for women and 19.2% for men. Research funded by NIH has been significant in all of these developments. NIH has been crucial in our understanding of HIV, in genetics research, and in work with chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. We’ve depended on medical research to understand yesterday’s disease, to create today’s treatment, and to find tomorrow’s cure.
If that’s not enough, NIH grant dollars affect the economy. A November 2011 Tripp Umbach study (PDF) showed that nationwide, NIH is responsible for an economic impact of $45 billion and 300,000 jobs. Minnesota is 15th on the lists of states that benefit the most, with an economic impact of $944.6 million and 6,298 jobs attributable to NIH funding.
The University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic are both significant draws for grants. According to Aaron L. Friedman, M.D., vice president for health sciences and dean of the U of M Medical School, “Studies show that for every dollar in funding a University takes in, we generate two dollars in economic development by purchasing supplies, hiring new staff and – in some cases – constructing new facilities or laboratories.”
Investing in medical research means investing in new drugs, new treatments, new medical devices, and new cures. It means jobs and economic growth. If funding to NIH is cut, we’ll save some money in the short term. But how can we make that choice when in the long term, we’ll lose out on important discoveries? We simply can’t afford it.
Posted in Health Care | Related Topics: Federal Government Public Health
3 Comments
February 15, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Thanks so much Heather! Right now I’m planning on going into public health in grad school. I’m always interested in policy though!
February 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Nicely articulated! If you go on to graduate school in the sciences, consider going into science policy after your PhD.
Bernice Vetsch says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:44 am
Some years ago (5? 10?) Dennis Kucinich offered a bill that would have increased the portion the government pays for research into new drugs from 60-65 percent to 100 percent. All new drugs would enter the market as generics because the government would own the patents, and all drug companies would be free to manufacture and market them in competition with one another.
Imagine how many billions of dollars this would have saved us over the past 10 or more years, including in the wrongly privatized (and therefore billions of dollars more expensive for both seniors and the government) Medicare Part D program.
Companies could, if they wished, be able to patent a drug by paying 100 per cent of its R&D costs themselves, but I don’t know how many would do so.