Fiscal Reset

Another crisis averted, right? Despite the Congresses’ apparent penchant for last minute drama, a deal was struck and the debt limit has been raised. So how did research fare?

Well, that is not an easy question to answer. The deal is comprised of long-term, 10-year caps and shorter term cuts to total discretionary spending. The caps will essentially prevent any real growth of discretionary spending, which contains all federal research agencies like NIH and NSF. For those of you familiar with government budgeting, this is similar to a long term continuing resolution.

Under the terms of the deal, for an agency budget to grow, the money would have to be re-purposed or offset from an existing discretionary program. In the past, Congress could simply increase the spending cap, which would give appropriations committees the funds needed for increases. Not anymore though.

Obviously, a flat budget is preferable to the deep cuts put forward by the House earlier in the fiscal year. However, for those familiar with biomedical inflation, a flat budget is equivalent to a funding cut. R&D budgets have not been able to keep pace with inflation, which means that a dollar today is worth significantly less than it was in the previous year.

What we do know is that research needs advocates now more than ever. Our nation is in the midst of a radical shift in fiscal policy and lawmakers are looking to their constituents to help set priorities. Make sure they know that research is an indispensable investment in America’s future.

Members of Congress are already returning to their districts for the August recess. Set up an in district meeting with your representatives today. We have several web tools to help.

Spending cuts again?

Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America, September 15, 2010

Appropriations season is upon us! This is that special time of year when Congress makes funding recommendations for all discretionary programs. I wanted to take this opportunity to provide a quick rundown of how health research agencies have fared, and what the prospects are for the next fiscal year.

As part of the recent FY 2011 budget deal, the White House and Congressional leaders agreed to a budget that would fund the government through September 30, 2011. Remember, this was the 11th hour deal that narrowly averted a government shutdown. However, this deal resulted in budget cuts to several health research agencies.

NIH was cut by $320M (1.2%), CDC received a whopping 11% cut – dialing their funding back to 2003 levels, the NSF was cut by $53M, which will mean about 250 fewer awards, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was cut by $25M (6%). The FDA was given a $107M boost in funding (for FY 2011), but the House recently passed an FY 2012 cut of $285M.

In general, the House is highly averse to any new spending and is even reluctant to accept flat budgets for discretionary agencies. Many of the new Members in the House feel that they are in office to slash agency budgets and deeply cut government spending.

On the Senate side, Members are more open to flat-funding government agencies. It’s hard to say what all of this will mean for health research in the FY 2012, but given the current political climate and state of our national debt, we can expect cuts to continue.

That is why it is more important than ever that you reach out to your representatives and let them know that further cuts are unacceptable. At the end of the day you are their constituent - this means that your representative’s work for you. If you talk, they will listen.

Final Thoughts from Christian

Incredibly, it’s already been three months, and my time at Research!America has come to an end. I would say that the time has flown by, but I can’t help thinking that those three months had the feel of a year’s worth of challenges and lessons.

If you’ve seen the news these past few months, or read this blog, you probably know why: February through April was an interesting time for Research!America. The fiscal year 2011 (and 2012) budget dominated the discussion in DC, and this organization was once again on the front line of protecting funding for health and medical research. We kept tabs on the potential and final cuts; we had meetings with representatives; and we encouraged our grassroots network to contact their elected officials and push for research funding.

Put simply, the federal budget was at the center of Research!America’s past three months, and it was at the center of my three months, too. I, in particular, took on the topic with my internship project, “Understanding the Federal Budget” (now available on the Research!America website). This new section provides an introduction to the federal budget process, an FAQ, and more. Most importantly, it gives you a picture of how federal research agencies like the NIH and CDC are faring in the budget, along with the cuts they face, and how those cuts might affect the agencies.

My goal in creating this site was to give people much the same education I received these past few months at Research!America. I spent a lot of time digging through spreadsheets, PDFs, and other reports, trying to get a better picture of the budget and what the current debate means for health and medical research. What I found was that this is as crucial a time as ever for research funding, as well as for advocacy. When you take a look at “Understanding the Federal Budget,” I hope you find the same. These past few months were challenging, but if the current political climate is any indication, there are many more challenges to come, and we only can tackle them if we understand them.

That was my ultimate lesson at Research!America: educating ourselves on the issues helps us to care (even more) about the issues. I came here with a slight understanding of the budget, and now I leave with a treasure trove of information. I came here with a deep appreciation for research, and now I leave with a great sense of responsibility for its future. It’s been three months, but if DC has shown me anything, it’s that things can move and change quickly, as can people.


New Voices has been proud to publish Christian Torres' posts during his time here, and we thank him for his innovative ideas, solid prose, and ability to come up with a post in an hour or less when necessary. We look forward to reading more as he continues his science journalism education with an internship in the health and science section of The Washington Post.  Good luck Christian!

Gangs of DC

Two political “gangs” with the same goal now exist in Congress. The Gang of Six and the Gang of Seven both seek to reach a deficit reduction deal that can gain traction with Democrats and Republicans alike.

With the goal of slashing $4 trillion from the nation’s budget deficit over the next decade, the Gang of Six arose out of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission toward the end of 2010. The older of the two, it is comprised of three Democrats and three Republicans: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mark Warner (D-VA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Mike Crapo (R-ID). Four of the six members of the group came from President Obama’s Simpson-Bowles deficit commission. The group recommends spending cuts, overhauling the tax code, and revamping Medicare and Medicaid entitlements.

The bipartisan, bicameral newcomer, the Gang of Seven, was recently called for by President Obama. Led by Vice President Joe Biden, it includes Sens. John Kyl (R-AZ), Max Baucus (D-MT), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and James Clyburn (D-SC). Its first meeting is scheduled for May 5.

Because it is unclear exactly why a second group was formed to tackle the same issue as a preexisting one, the emergence of the Gang of Seven has caused a lot of buzz. According to ABC News, some lawmakers feel that it undermines the work of the earlier-formed gang. That the latter group is comprised of both Senators and Representatives is the only obvious difference between the two. The Christian Science Monitor poses a further observation of the group’s differences:

Unlike the bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators who have been trying to reach an agreement on these very same issues, the newly minted “Gang of Seven,” as some commentators are referring to the new negotiators, represents the starkest partisan views on Capitol Hill: The GOP appointees oppose tax increases, the Democrats oppose cuts to entitlements, especially Social Security.

The article goes on to say that although both groups are unofficial, if either one is able to agree to a plan, they may have the leverage to garner enough support in Congress to pass a budget compromise.

Special thanks to today's guest blogger, Rachael Schoop, a communications associate at Research!America.

Invest in Montana research, continue to reap long-term benefits

If science and research are important to you, it is up to you to make the case for it. That means reaching out to the public and policymakers to explain the benefits of research and how it impacts your community.

Richard Bridges, Chair of the Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Montana, recently published an op-ed on the importance of research in Montana:

The real bottom line is that research and discovery, which go hand-in-hand with education, are the very lifelines of innovation that drive job growth and enhance our quality of life. Just as it is important to realize that the rewards of scientific research are many, we must be equally aware that Montana has become a player and directly benefits from the national investment in research.

Speaking as someone who has spent most of my life in a lab, I can safely say we, as scientists, have not done a stellar job of informing people about what we do or how we do it. Unfortunately, this may prove to be a significant omission, as research funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are now on the chopping block despite strong public support for research.

Though we see the tremendous advancements made in medical care on a daily basis, we tend to forget that the seeds of these discoveries may have been planted a decade earlier in basic biomedical research labs like those in Missoula, Hamilton, Great Falls, Butte, Billings or Bozeman.

Indeed, a 2011 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that drugs discovered in public-sector research institutions are "expected to have a disproportionately large therapeutic effect." This means university research labs have become a primary pipeline in development of high-demand medicines and treatments, like those in the University of Montana's Skaggs School of Pharmacy aimed at new drugs for stroke and traumatic brain injury. The federal investment in research also has a proven track record of return. Few cancer survivors or their families would argue that developing life-saving therapies is not worth the expense, given that the NIH budget for cancer research works out to about $2 per American per month.

While many Montanans benefit from and appreciate the research discoveries, they may not be aware that these discoveries are made right in their own state. As the number and competitiveness of scientists in our universities, hospitals and research institutes have grown dramatically in the past several years, so too has our success in attracting NIH grants. Considering that about 60 to 70 percent of this funding typically supports salaries, it translates directly into jobs: skilled technical jobs, sustainable jobs and well-paying jobs. Indeed, a study by the Families USA Foundation revealed that in 2008, the $38 million awarded to Montana by NIH led to the creation of about 700 jobs. Further analysis by Research!America revealed these health research jobs in Montana had an average annual salary around $55,000. Excitingly, this successful trend is continuing, as 2010 saw further increases in both NIH and NSF awards made to Montana.

These dollars support not only faculty and technical staff, but also undergraduate and graduate students. In this manner, jobs created in research labs provide a way for students to pay for their education while gaining valuable hands-on experience, as well as open up the types of employment opportunities that can keep them in the state after graduation. Active research on campus not only brings students into the labs, it also brings current ideas, problem solving and the concept of discovery right into the classroom. This is exactly the type of training and "hands-on" experience that will keep Montana's work force globally competitive.

Recent entrepreneurial developments around both UM and Montana State University also demonstrate that these research successes can extend off campus and lead to creation of private-sector spin-off companies with all the associated economic benefits, the foremost being more jobs. Lastly, this growth in biomedical science provides a welcome opportunity for Montana researchers to specifically address challenges relevant to our state and its residents. Who better to help solve problems related to rural health disparities, asbestosis, addiction, traumatic brain injury, mad cow disease, Lyme disease, brucellosis and chronic wasting disease than the faculty researchers and students on our own campuses and in our own communities?

Our current times require that not just scientists speak up, but that all of us who see the long-term value of science voice a call to continue making our national investment in research a priority. Research is the key to Montana's future.

Endgame for FY 2011

On Friday, President Obama signed off on the budget deal brokered with Congress. The final tally was $38.5 billion in discretionary cuts, although even the CBO has questioned this number.

How did health research fare? We’ve seen better days. The NIH and NSF were both cut by 1.2%, about $300M and $60M respectively. The Agency for Healthcare Research and quality was cut by $25M or 6%, while the FDA was actually provided with $107M increase. The CDC has been hit with the worst of the cuts to health research, totaling $820M – a cut of nearly 13%.

So let’s think about this. At a time when our deficit is being driven by the cost of healthcare and American business is losing its competitiveness to pay for healthcare, our government has decided that prevention is not a priority. Cutting the CDC might save us $820M (0.0002% of total federal spending) in the short run, but how will those cuts impact our health, our deficit, and our economy in five years?

Some have suggested that this budget deal could have been much worse. The budget that was previously passed by the House and defeated by the Senate, HR 1, contained much deeper discretionary cuts that would have been devastating to health research and science.

Now that FY 2011 has come to a conspicuous end, Congress and the White House have already begun to set their sights on FY 2012 and beyond. Paul Ryan recently released his budget plan, ‘The Path to Prosperity’, and President Obama has put forth a plan entitled the ‘President’s Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility.’

Which plan do you support?

Lovely Weather, Rainy Day Reading

Comic credit: PhD Comics

The weather has been lovely this week in Washington, DC. As usual, as soon as we don't need to be at our desks (read: Saturday), the forecast turns gloomy. But, it means we'll have plenty of time to read up on stuff we missed this week. Here are five things we haven't missed (and don't think you should either):

1. Last week's budget deal made its way through Congress this week, and now awaits President Obama's signature. Read these Science stories for more on how the deal affects research funding overall, as well as the NIH and NSF in particular.
2. The royal wedding is just two weeks away, and Cell has an amusing, scientific perspective on the union of Prince William and Kate Middleton. (If you don't have a subscription, there's a summary here.)
3. Looking for a job in public service? This book tells you how you can get paid to change the world.
4. You've heard of the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, but is there a higher education bubble? If so, is it about to burst?
5. Ed Yong explains how breast cells may be able to revert to stem cells. What would that mean for the future of stem cell research?

Finally, if you like Earth Day activities, get a head start this year and submit a photo or video to the Consumer Electronics Association's contest to show what you'll be celebrating. Submissions are due April 17th, so be sure to get yours in soon!

Happy reading and we'll see you next week!

Crisis Averted, For Now

Some government employees may have been looking forward to a long weekend. But a government shutdown is no laughing matter. It’s clear that government employees throughout the nation were bracing for the absence of essential income in a difficult economic environment. But a deal was cut and appropriations will continue through the end of this fiscal year. So ends the long standing battle over FY 2011 budgeting, which culminated this past weekend with the 7th CR, and nearly furloughed 800,000 federal employees.

It’s hard to say just who came out ahead in this deal. All sides are claiming victory even though it is becoming increasingly clear that this was really just one of the first upcoming budget battles and tougher fights are still come (e.g. debt ceiling and entitlements).

Health research and science may emerge unscathed by this most recent budget debate, despite the fact that these areas were clearly targeted for cuts in H.R. 1 – the House spending bill that never passed the Senate.

Some have suggested that H.R. 1 should be viewed as a policy document that lays out the priorities of House Republicans and will continue to guide their approach to governing. Hence, while research programs may appear safe for now, they could be targeted again during debates over the FY 2012 budget.

This is why it is essential for all those who care about health research to continue to reach out to Congress and demonstrate the local impact and importance of these programs. Remember, that at the end of the day your representatives are ultimately accountable to you. Make sure they know that you didn’t send them to Washington to cut medical research.

A House Divided

Last week, the Tea Party came back to Washington. They rallied to express their outrage over government spending and Congress’s inability to reach agreement on the budget. Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6), now weighing a presidential run in 2012, addressed the crowd of about 200 people.

With a government shutdown seeming more likely, some policymakers have re-termed it as a government ‘slowdown’. And when this was mentioned at the rally, many in the crowd cheered the idea of the government shutting its doors.

But the Tea Party represents just one ideological faction that has come to be affiliated with Republican Party and they have brought their own unique approach to the budget debate. Some have openly advocated for a government shutdown, believing that to be an effective means to reducing government spending.

House Republican leadership is currently in the process of finalizing a budget for the coming fiscal year. However, several Republicans have indicated that this forthcoming budget is not sufficient to address government spending. In fact, the Republican Study Committee, a group of 175 House Republicans, announced its plan to release a so called ‘rogue budget.’ As you might have guessed, this document would cut spending at a much higher rate than the plan released by the House leadership.

In essence, there are three Republican factions within the House that have differing visions for the future of the federal government. When the House Budget Committee releases its plan for FY 2012 tomorrow, the debate will be renewed. Where do you stand?

Battle of the Budget

For those hoping for some closure on the fiscal year 2011 budget, don’t hold your breath. The House’s year-long spending bill was voted down by the Senate last week, and the Senate’s alternative also failed to garner enough support to pass.

In place of a budget, House Republicans have introduced yet another short-term spending bill that chips away at government spending to the tune of two billion dollars per week. As long as the House, Senate, and President can find a way to keep the government operating, none can be accused of dropping the ball and causing a government shutdown.

But how much longer can this last? The current fiscal year doesn’t end until Sept. 30, and the budget battles have all but consumed the limited bandwidth of Congress. Granted, budgeting is an important way for the nation to express priorities, but this means that many other substantive issues go unaddressed.

The politics of budgeting are especially important in the face of a down economy and major deficits, but there is also the matter of public policy. Instead of reducing government programs to budgetary line items, we must carefully consider the history and impact of a program before making the decision to cut.

Both the White House and the House Republican majority have instituted measures to enhance the transparency of government decision making. Neither side has provided a thorough rationale for cuts. Like many Americans, I recognize the need to limit government spending, but cuts must be done in the most thoughtful and democratic way possible. I know we can do better.

Meet Amit Mistry, AAAS Science and Technology Fellow at USAID

Amit is a former Science Policy Fellow for Research!America and was kind enough to tell us via email about his current work.

New Voices (NV): What do you do, and why is it important?

Amit: I am a AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am working on the development and implementation of a strategy to combat global hunger and food security. Part of my job involves communicating technical information to non-technical audiences, keeping them informed and engaged in our activities. Another part of my job is connecting research programs to country programs that may benefit from the research. More broadly, my work supports a coordinated effort across the U.S. government to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger.

NV: What’s the most exciting part of what you do? Any particularly interesting stories?

Amit: The most exciting part of my job is getting to see the impact of our agency’s work through the real people who are impacted by it. In September 2010, I traveled to Uganda for a few weeks and provided the local government feedback on its plan to strengthen the agriculture sector and reduce hunger. I met inspirational government leaders, researchers, and farmers who all shared the goal of lifting millions of Ugandans out of poverty.

NV: What is the biggest policy issue affecting your work? Describe how you’ve dealt with it, or even advocated regarding that issue.

Amit: One of the important challenges I face is working across multiple sectors, such as food security and climate change. These two sectors are closely linked and should be addressed comprehensively for the greatest impact. At USAID, I helped create a Strategic Integration Working Group, which brings together various sectors so they can share best practices. The group has developed recommendations for USAID that can improve our work across multiple sectors.

NV: How might the public misinterpret your work? Is there anything you want to clear up?

Amit: There is a misconception that U.S. investments abroad don’t have an impact on Americans. In fact, investments in foreign assistance have a far-reaching impact that affects our own economic security and national security. Our investments in foreign assistance build allies, strengthen trade partnerships, and create opportunities for American innovators and entrepreneurs.

NV: What’s your advice for someone in science who wants to get involved in policy, advocacy or outreach?

Amit: My advice for someone interested in science policy is to strengthen your communication skills and practice communicating with different audiences, and for different purposes. Good communication skills are an incredible asset in science policy and will make you a more effective advocate or policy-maker. Also, I recommend learning the federal budgeting process because it is extremely helpful to understand, no matter where you work in the science policy world. Finally, I would encourage you to always promote the use of science-based decision-making in the policy area.


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Welcome to Budget 101

Image courtesy of Rep. Huizenga

Capitol Hill is buzzing over the budget these days. But for those of us not fully in tune with the budget process, all of the talk might sound like little more than, well, a buzz in our ears.

We can’t, however, brush it off: budgets for the NIH, FDA, CDC, and other important agencies are in danger of being cut. This is a time for science and research advocates to both understand and get involved in the federal budgeting process. So, consider yourself automatically enrolled in Budget 101, your introduction to the federal budget.

First, it’s important to realize that in Congress right now there are two concurrent arguments about two separate budgets:

Fiscal Year 2012
Affecting: Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2012
What’s going on? On Feb. 14, President Obama submitted his 2012 budget proposal to Congress. The budget will now proceed through Congressional committees and so forth (see below).

Fiscal Year 2011
Affecting: Now – Sept. 30, 2011
What’s going on? The 2011 budget was meant to have been completed and signed months ago, but a lack of movement in Congress has left the government functioning under a continuing resolution (CR). The CR stipulates that, for the time being, all areas of the federal government receive funding at the same level as the previous (2010) fiscal year. The CR, however, expires on March 4, at which time the federal government will shut down if no budget is ready. Currently, the Republican-controlled House has passed its own version of the FY2011 budget, but the Democrat-controlled Senate will likely block that budget, forcing a compromise.

As you can see, there’s been a holdup in the FY 2011 budget-making process. Here’s how the process is supposed to run, with a focus on how funding for agencies like the NIH goes through:

Step 1:
About one year before the president’s budget proposal, individual agencies (like the NIH, FDA, etc.) begin planning for the latest budget. They work with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to come up with a budget strategy that also address the president’s priorities – fields and issues in which he’d like to see greater investment.

Step 2:
About six months before the president’s budget proposal, agencies have submitted their budget proposals and are negotiating with the OMB. By January, budget proposals should be finalized and compiled.

Step 3:
The president submits his budget proposal to Congress in February.

Step 4:
House and Senate budget committees discuss their own overall goals for spending and government revenue, which are then voted on. In cases of disagreement between the houses, a conference committee is set up. This step should take place February through May.

Step 5:
House and Senate appropriations committees take a closer look at the individual agency budgets and write bills that are then voted on by the individual house. Again, when there is disagreement between the Senate and House, a conference committee settles the difference. This step should take place June through September.

Step 6:
Appropriations bills are sent to the president - hopefully before Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year. That, however, did not happen in time for FY2011, so a continuing resolution was passed instead. Continuing resolutions are not uncommon, but it is rare for a resolution to expire and lead to a government shutdown.

Step 7:
Agencies receive their funding.

If you’d like to learn more, check out The Washington Post’s interactive feature on the budgeting process, or this AAAS presentation on the budget process and R&D investment. Also, be on the lookout over the coming weeks as Research!America’s own website is updated with information about the federal budget.