Reform NIH Funding

Reform NIH funding

In order to maintain efficiency with a low budget, the NIH needs to reform their current ways of spending in an effort to do more with less. Finding efficiencies for the NIH has become an imminent matter because,

 “the agency hasn't had an increase above inflation other than the one-year stimulus infusion of 2009. Now sequestration means an immediate 5-percent cut, at a time when many universities are trying to figure how to keep the staffing commitments they made when the doubling encouraged them to bulk up their research hiring and building construction” (Basken 15).

This emphasizes the fact that funding for the NIH is no longer consistent, so it needs to compensated for.

One way to do this involves the intramural and extramural programs. The intramural program accounts for 10 percent of the NIH’s budget, however there are conflicting views as to the efficiency of the program. Most of the program “consists of small laboratories similar to those found on many university campuses” (Basken 25). Some scientists argue that the intramural program is weak and that universities and other specialized facilities do a better job of performing research. Other scientists insist that the intramural program is very productive because researchers are able to “focus on the big picture rather than the nitty-gritty pursuit of grants” (Basken 39). These scientists are saying that investigators at the NIH can be highly specialized in a particular area, meaning that they are better qualified compared to a university researcher. In contrast to reducing the intramural program, the agency’s large “center grants” (where NIH officials designate researchers at outside universities to carry out projects and certain fields of study) could be cut instead. The NIH has the capacity to become self-sufficient, so cutting the extramural program could be a viable possibility. I cannot say whether cutting the intramural or extramural program would be more efficient, but the NIH should consider cuts within these programs.

In addition to cuts within the agency, the process of reviewing and selecting grants needs to be addressed. Much like other government agencies, the NIH has certain protocols that are emphasized in order to receive and keep a grant, e.g. proposals, checkpoints, and follow-up reviews. This system entails scientists having to complete work before asking for funding which means scientists who present more preliminary data have a higher priority of receiving funds. This is unfair to other investigators who have worked just as hard on their projects. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has been suggested as a model research organization because the institute grants funding to outstanding researchers “without requiring that specific projects be identified in advance” (Basken 44). However, HHMI is considerably smaller than the NIH and represents one aspect of the research community so it is not the perfect model, but it is a place to start. I understand that the NIH is a government agency so they have to deal with bureaucracy, but they need to allow their investigators to conduct research without having the burden of grant applications, proposals and follow-ups constantly hanging over their heads.

Furthermore, we do not know whether the research outputted by scientists in the “top tier” is significantly better than what an “average” investigator produces, so this needs to be studied. In a commentary published in Nature, Benjamin Jones proposed a study, “…take winners of grants from the US National Institutes of Health. A subset of these beneficiaries could be randomly selected to receive 10% less funding (treatment group 1) and then grants could be awarded to extra projects that scored just below the funding line (treatment group 2). By tracking project outcomes over time we could determine the causative effects of both dollars and grant numbers on the progress of science, thus informing a better balance between grant size and grant number for future programming (25).” Jones is saying that we should see whether a larger grant size is correlated to more productive research. If it is not highly correlated, then we should consider re-allocating money to allow a greater number of smaller programs to be funded as opposed to less larger programs.

It is unfortunate that the NIH must continue to endure budget cuts, but it is a reality. The NIH must strive to maintain an efficient operation by properly utilizing the funds that they have. They should take the proposed solutions into account and reform their budget to the best of their capabilities.

Word Count: 735

Word Count: 735

Basken, Paul. "Cuts May Force Long-Awaited Efficiencies at NIH." The Chronicle of Higher Education 59.29 (2013). Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.

Jones, Benjamin. "Research management: What would you cut?" Editorial. Nature 499 (2013): 147-48. PubMed. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/499147a.html#/benjamin-jones-make-randomized-controlled-cuts>.