Betsy de Parry

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.

(Continuation from previous). But research is also an economic engine. According to a report by United for Medical Research, NIH funding for research in 2010 generated $69 billion in economic activity in the U.S. and supported 484,939 jobs in every state and D.C. In Michigan, NIH awarded $751 million for research that supported 13,406 jobs. Michigan can't afford the loss of a single one. The report also concluded that every NIH research dollar spent leads to the expenditure of 32 cents by the private medical research sector. And it points to the success of NIH funding. Five of the top 20 best selling drugs in 2010 were developed in large part with NIH funding: monoclonal antibody therapies that generated $35 billion in sales for American companies. Additionally, America is the world leader in cancer research and the development of new therapies, and we didn't get there by chance. We got there because of the long term commitment and steadfast determination by the administrations of both political parties to support and invest in research through NIH and NCI. But we may be slipping. When adjusted for inflation, the NIH budget peaked in 2003 and declined by 12% over the next 5 years, and research awards fell by 21% since 2005. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that national expenditures for research and development as a percentage of GDP were static for the U.S. between 2001-2008 but grew nearly 60% in China and 34% in South Korea. If this trend continues, America not only risks losing our preeminence in biomedical research, but we also risk weakening an important economic engine and jeopardizing the health of our citizens. To sum it up, maintaining NIH funding – even with today's economic challenges - is both logical and practical for more reasons than the fact that it saves lives, although in my humble opinion, that's more than enough reason.

Betsy de Parry

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.

Kathleen, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't know about NIH research for Parkinson's, but I do know that NIH funding for cancer research has saved millions of lives, including mine. Ten years after a diagnosis of an "incurable" form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, I am healthy, thanks to a treatment that was developed right here at UM that was partially funded by NIH. So, like you, I can attest to the fact that NIH funding directly impacts lives and I would caution everyone to remember that a devastating illness may someday affect them or a family member, and it may very well be NIH funding that helps scientists find a new treatment. Could NIH improve? Of course, but in just the last few years, scientists have gained an unprecedented understanding of the mechanism of cancer, and it's guided them to preventive strategies and to new and better treatments for some cancers. The momentum is great, and scientists today stand on the very precipice of accelerating progress faster than ever. But "fast" is relative. Cancer research is not a sprint, but a marathon that unfortunately takes longer than some of us have or than any of us would like. Still, there are more than 12 million cancer survivors alive today, thanks in large part to our nation's investment in research, i.e., funding by the NIH and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of NIH. The question is: will the momentum generated by previous investment be sustained? If so, it will require a continued commitment to research. In 2011, only 7% of all NCI grants had guaranteed funding, down 10% from the previous year, meaning that many worthy proposals that could possibly hold the key to the next breakthrough were unfunded. In human terms, if the idea that saved my life had gone unfunded because it didn't make it into the top 7%, it's almost certain that I'd be pushing up daisies rather than writing this. In other words, reduced funding threatens progress – and lives. (To be cont'd)

SonnyDog09

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.

Let's keep throwing more money at the NIH. Only in government-land do we consider getting the same amount of money to be a "cut." I also love knowing that my tax dollars through the NIH funded a study of the lives of female prostitutes in southwest China. That's the kind of research that will surely improve the health of Americans (that was sarcastic).

Veracity

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 8:53 a.m.

All readers posting critical comments should familiarize themselves with the NIH strenuous grant evaluation and selection process: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grants_process.htm In many cases, researchers must show preliminary data as proof that the work can be done and the chances for success are high. For this reason universities and medical facilities that support research usually provide young investigators with start-up money so that some initial research can be done which will support an NIH grant application. After a vigorous evaluation and ranking process only about 20% of NIH applications receive any funding and often less than is requested. Furthermore, NIH grant recipients must file periodic progress reports and may be subject to audits and on-site visits. The NIH has funded important research that would not be funded otherwise. The Human Genome Project is its most widely known success. As a result of defining the human genomes, diseases are better understood and disease specific treatments are appearing. DNA identification is important to forensic science. Readers should be concerned not about wasteful spending by the NIH but by impending Congressional budget cuts that will reduce funding rates from one-in-five to just one-in-six "worthy" applications. Everyone should read "NIH Sees Looming 2012 Budget as 'Sobering'," published on May 20, 2011 at http://www.genomeweb.com/nih-sees-looming-2012-budget-sobering. The article highlights major cuts in NIH funding associated with bills introduced by US House of Representatives Republicans. The article explains the implications of such funding reductions. Some Republican presidential candidates would do away with the NIH entirely. Besides stifling progress of medical science in America closing NIH will abrogate cutting edge research to foreign governments such as China who will use innovative developments to advance its economic advantage over the United States. Consider this when voting in Novembe

Wehrwolf

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 7:48 a.m.

If the general public could actually see what goes on behind laboratory doors at academic research institutions like UM, they at would at best, be confused, and at worst, disappointed and outraged. Much of the "basic science" research that happens has little to do with advancing public health. Grant proposals requesting NIH money more often than not pay lip service to a perceived public health issue, but the proposed science within is so far removed from any inkling of public health, and in many cases serves only to further the principle investigator's career. A main problem with this kind of research and funding is that it is not goal driven. In the private sector, if you fail to achieve your aims with the money given to you, chances are you're not getting anymore. However, NIH money exists to allow scientists to "dabble" in their field, and while it grants them intellectual freedom, the taxpayers foot the bill and what they get in return in many cases is not commiserate with the amount of money spent. Much of that money is spent on overhead (i.e. the university takes a huge chunk right off the bat), administrative costs, salaries, and providing free tuition and stipends of $25,000+ a year for graduate students who on average take 5-6 years to publish mostly obscure and irrelevant results. Companies that supply laboratories with consumables, equipment, and reagents overcharge, knowing that researchers don't have other alternatives. And in the end, the very people who act as "gatekeepers" of all this money are the ones who are on the NIH dole themselves. Of course there is self interest involved. While ethics is an honorable aspiration, the fact remains that proposals that shouldn't be funded get funded, and those that have actual merit don't. This outdated system needs to be reformed to be more efficient and cost effective, but not by throwing more money at it.

trespass

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 4:47 a.m.

Just like Medicare and Medicaid are easy pickings for fraud so is NIH funding. Sometimes the grant recipients call it "grantsmanship" but it is fraud. In some cases it is inflated overhead costs but the most common fraud has to do with effort certification. While federal law requires that no investigator can have more than 100% effort even if they work 80 hours per week but I have seen records at UM where the internal reports say that the investigator works up to 200% effort but everything over 100% does not show up on their federal effort reports. This inflates the amount of effort that is paid for by the grant. There needs to be better enforcement of rules against fraud before we keep inflating the budget line for research. Research is a worthwhile investment but it should be efficient and not wasteful spending.

braggslaw

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : midnight

Just another organization trying to take my tax dollars for the "public good". Research without tough management and definitive goals leads only to ....... more research and not the blockbuster drugs you crave.

1bit

Sat, Mar 17, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.

Kathleen, First off, I wish you well in your battle with Parkinson's disease. However, there is a fallacy in the logic that "I have X condition and therefore more research money needs to be spent generically." If $32 billion more is given to the NIH, there is absolutely zero guarantee any of it would be spent researching Parkinson's disease - so that fact becomes irrelevant. Have you considered how the NIH gives away the money and to whom? My biggest problem with the money given out is that there is very little accountability with regards to return on investment. Sure, some money needs to go to basic research that won't or can't be monetized (at least not in the near term). However, much of the money actually goes to companies. Those companies will create drugs (or devices) and then charge us an arm and a leg for that product which we gave the initial seed money towards. I think it's high time for "strings" to be attached to the money. If a product/drug/device is created from grant money then the NIH should get receive some recompense. If you think this is not right, then realize it is no different than the University would do or a bank or a venture capitalist firm would ask for. So, in the end, I agree. More money for research. Especially translational research. However, maybe those small percentage who actually create a monetary gain can give back to the system so that it can become self-sustaining.