chernoff@cartan.berkeley.edu (Paul R. Chernoff) (06/02/90)
(I am posting this for my colleague Michael Syvanen (syvanenm@mizar.ucdavis.edu)
to whom replies should be directed. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to two postings by Elke Jordan which were intended to
rebut the posting "Keep the Human Genome Project out of the NIH".
Elke Jordan argues that the HGP has not caused the existing funding crisis
at the NIH, and that it won't squeeze out basic research in the future. I agree
with her first point; there are many factors which have led to the current
crisis in investigator-initiated research funding. The HGP, being new and
partially funded, has only contributed to the larger problem. But, given the fact
that a funding crisis exists, I am extremely concerned about what is going to
occur in the near future. The aim of our original posting was to get the HGP removed
from the NIH before it causes really serious problems.
Elke Jordan, along with other HGP advocates, argues that the HGP is not
expensive enough to drain funds from other research. She claims that the HGP
is less than 1% of the NIH budget. But this is not a meaningful way to look at
its cost. We ought to compare the size of the HGP budget to the budget for non-
targeted investigator-initiated basic research. The HGP is requesting $200
million for 1992. If such items as AIDS, drug and alcohol research, and minority
grants (three areas whose budgets will not be cut) and also intramural research,
training, fellowship, and clinical grants, and center grants were subtracted from
the total NIH research budget, we could see more clearly the magnitude of the HGP
budget compared to the budget for nontargeted investigator-initiated basic research.
It is regrettable that this more useful breakdown of the budget data does not seem
to be readily available to the public.
We have heard an estimate that the latter figure currently comes to
about $1.5 billion dollars. If this is indeed so, then the $200 million
dollars requested by the HGP for 1992 would come to about 12% of the current,
relevant grant budget. If the cost of the Project were to double, as some have
predicted, we would be looking at over 24% of the current relevant budget.
We urge the NIH to make this breakdown of the grant budget available to
the public.
Elke Jordan and other HGP advocates have argued that the Human Genome
Project will be funded with "extra funds" or "new" money. This is not convincing.
What does "new" money mean, anyway? "New" money would be money that could only be
raised for the Human Genome Project. This means that no matter how hard the
administration and the scientific community lobbied, they could not convince
Congress to come up with another dime for the NIH, unless designated for the
Human Genome Project. How can anyone claim this knowledge? Where is the
evidence? Who believes it?
I have a suggestion. How about replacing the Human Genome Initiative with
the "Non-Targeted Investigator-Initiated Grant Initiative"? If we took
the time and effort to explain to the public why non-targeted independent
investigator grants are the best scientific investments, perhaps we could forget
about "new" money or old money, and simply raise *enough* money to carry on basic
bio-medical research.
Michael Syvanen
University of California, Davis
------------------
Mike Syvanen (SYVANENM@MIZAR.ucdavis.edu)kristoff@PRESTO.IG.COM (Dave Kristofferson) (06/07/90)
I'll throw my two cents worth in on this part of the latest portion of the debate: > Elke Jordan and other HGP advocates have argued that the Human Genome > Project will be funded with "extra funds" or "new" money. This is > not convincing. I think it is as explained below. > What does "new" money mean, anyway? "New" money would be money that > could only be raised for the Human Genome Project. Not exclusively, but new money that might come in for APPLIED research which probably could not be obtained if one only tried to enhance BASIC research. > This means that no matter how hard the > administration and the scientific community lobbied, they could not convince > Congress to come up with another dime for the NIH, unless designated for the > Human Genome Project. How can anyone claim this knowledge? Where is the > evidence? Who believes it? Obviously one can not state "a priori" that no amount of lobbying would help get additional grants for basic research, but ***let's not get this extreme***. I think the point, at least as I have heard it, is that the Congress expects more immediate benefits to come out of the sequence of the genome than they might expect to get out of basic research. I'm sure that many might (and undoubtedly will) debate this point, but I believe that it is an easier "sell" to Congress, i.e., one is looking at the old issue of applied research with a more immediate economic return versus pure research with a more long term outlook (often with no obvious economic return). If this is indeed how the funding situation is viewed (and I do not claim to speak with any authority here), then I would submit that one might have to argue far longer and with much greater vigor to get additional money out of Congress for basic research than for a project in which more near-term benefits will result. In this sense the Genome Project *IS* new money. Of course, if one has other applied projects in mind with similar expected economic returns, then one might be able to get these "new" funds by lobbying for those projects. However, I highly doubt that you'll make it with a "Non-Targeted Investigator-Initiated Grant Initiative." 8-) In this sense there would be little doubt (at least in my little brain!) that the Genome project would attract new money. For all of my love of basic research I think that most of us are aware of the vast amount of space occupied by basic research papers in dusty journals on library shelves. Basic research is always a higher risk proposition. I'm sure that this fact also has something to do with why Congress does not give the entire GNP to the NIH. Frankly, having been in both academics and industry, I would really like to see more cooperation in the U.S. between the government, academia, and industry. Perhaps we could learn from the Japanese in this regards. Instead, we beat each other up as witnessed by the current debate, drive wedges between the various parties and worry about "conflicts of interest" while other countries forge ahead of us. The stupidity of it depresses me to no end. Dave Kristofferson IntelliGenetics, Inc.