ELJ@CU.NIH.GOV (05/26/90)
This is a further response from the National Center for Human
Genome Research to the commentary from Dan Davison on letters from
Dr. Jordan and Dr. Wyngaarden in response to criticism about the
Human Genome Program.
Much of the concern and recent discussion about the genome project
betrays a lack of understanding about the federal budget process
and lack of knowledge about actual budget figures in the biomedical
community. This is unfortunate. This reply will therefore supply
some basic budget facts.
No one denies that these are difficult times for biological
research and that investigators are having a hard time getting
grants. But it is not "NIH policy" to have tight budgets. Budgets
are recommended by the President and appropriated by Congress.
They are based on many factors such as the state of the economy,
competing national priorities, etc. Neither is the Human Genome
Program responsible for the tight NIH budget; it is much too small
to have so big an effect.
Below is a table showing NIH budget trends over the last ten years.
During this time several things have happened. The total cost per
year of the average grant has risen from $106,700 to $207,800 (in
spite of negotiated reductions!). The length of the average grant
has increased from 3.3 years to 4.3 years over this time, and the
fraction of the NIH budget going to individual grants has grown
from 50% to almost 56%. All these changes have benefitted the
individual investigator. The number of competing grants, however,
which rose dramatically during '85 to '88, recently dropped off
again.
Notice that there is no correlation between the number of competing
grants and the number of total grants in a particular year. The
number of competing grants fluctuates more from year to year than
the total number of grants. This reflects, in part, the fact that
a different proportion of non-competing grants turns over each
year. Most of the money in each year is committed to ongoing, non-
competing grants.
Year NIH bud %rpg # grts # comp length av.$
1981 $3,573M 49.5 16,480 5,109 107
1982 $3,643M 50.3 15,970 5,027 3.3 112
1983 $4,013M 52.2 16,921 5,389 3.3 119
1984 $4,494M 53.2 17,305 5,493 3.4 133
1985 $5,122M 54.1 18,357 6,246 3.4 147
1986 $5,300M 55.1 18,796 6,211 3.6 150
1987 $6,175M 56.1 19,583 6,453 3.9 175
1988 $6,610M 56.6 20,202 6,213 4.1 177
1989 $7,158M 56.4 20,681 5,382 4.2 183
1990est $7,576M 55.4 20,316 4,633 4.3 204
1991req $7,930M 55.8 20,439 5,095 4.3 208
The budget figures are in millions of $. For 1981 to 1989,
the numbers are actual expenditures, for 1990 the appropriated
level, and for 1991 the President's request.
NIH budg = everything, including intramural, AIDS, etc. in
millions of dollars
% rpg = the percent of the total NIH budget allocated for
investigator-initiated research project grants i.e. R01, P01,
R29, U01
# grts = total # research project grants
# comp = # research project grants that were competing, i.e.
type 1 and 2
length = average length of grants in years
This year the number of competing grants that will be awarded is
lower than in the last few years. This is the basis for the
current concern. However, the total number of grants awarded is
about the same as in the last couple of years. Ergo, the problem
is that there are growing scientific opportunities and applications
in an era of level budgets.
Other comments on specific points raised :
Dan Davison wrote about a presumed "5000 lost grants." I think
that he arrived at that conclusion by mixing up total grants funded
versus competing grants funded. There are no lost grants, I hope.
The debate about the genome project in the scientific community and
in Congress as well as in the press has been more extensive than
for any other program at NIH that I know of.
The geographic distribution of genome funds is not likely to be any
different from the distribution of NIH funds generally.
As to the trickle down theory, it is a demonstrated fact that in
biology the technology that was at first expensive, cumbersome, and
available in only a few labs, soon was improved and simplified so
that it became available to all, including small labs. There is
no reason to think the genome project will not follow this pattern.
Rumors that R01 and P01 grants are being cut back or terminated to
fund centers are false. Current projections are that research
project grants will comprise about half of NCHGR research funds for
the foreseeable future.
The genome project will develop much of the information that will
become the foundation of the biology of the 21st century. It seems
to me there is a golden opportunity here to educate the public, the
Congress, and other decision makers about the scientific potential
growing out of this project in all areas of biology. In other
words, capitalize on the fact that this is a well-known project
that many are already excited about.
Elke Jordan
Deputy Director
National Center for Human Genome Research
National Institutes of Health