We should be screaming.
This news is disturbing. George Bush just vetoed a bill that included a $1 billion dollar increase to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget (increasing the NIH budget from $29 to $30 billion). That's a 3.45% increase in the budget. Keep in mind, that throughout 2007, the rate of inflation has been between 2 and 3%. This is barely keeping up with inflation. In fact, the current NIH funding level is *lower* than it was in 2003 (when adjusted for inflation). That's right, the president thinks that paying for research for cancer, HIV and bird flu is unimportant.
The money quote?
In a statement released by the White House after Bush vetoed the bill, the president decried the Democrat-led Congress for engaging in what he called a "spending spree," and said that the legislative majority was "acting like a teenager with a new credit card."Wow. Cancer research is what a teenager spends his/her money on. That's simply amazing.
I love that the work that I do is considered unimportant by George Bush.
Meanwhile? The direct costs of the Iraq war are up to $468 billion dollars. And counting.
Good work, George.
via Pharyngula
11 comments:
So the legislative body hands the president a pile of crap on a silver platter and he decides that he doesn’t want a bite. Would you have signed the bill just to get your pet project funded?
Beg pardon, Chuck. Do you think cancer research is a "pet project"?
Yes or no.
The pretty colored liquids in your picture. Are those pH standards? I suppose slashing the budget makes it necessary for labs to decrease the frequency with which they calibrate their pH meters.
Yep, I think they're pH standards.
Our lab is hurting pretty badly due to the cuts. Our department had a multi-lab group grant for the past 25 years that was not renewed this year. It had a fantastic score, but funding scores have gotten ridiculous.
In many study sections you have to be in the top ten percentile to get funded. That means 90% of grants being submitted are not being funded. There are always bad grant applications, but 90% are unfundable?
Me, I'm starting to look at my options in other countries where the funding situation is sunnier, and I know a lot of people who feel likewise. This is going to have long term bad implications for the U.S.
Cancer research is very important to you. It is not that important to me. If it was important to me, I would not give money to the federal government to squander.
Just because something is "important" doesn't mean money should be uselessly thrown away on it. Once something is already properly funded, more money isn't going to get any quicker of a result.
Chuck,
I'm sorry you don't think cures for diseases are important. I, for one, can imagine few things that are more important, but there you have it. At least you're honest.
Anonymous,
Two problems with this. One, research funding is effectively being cut. The current rates of funding aren't keeping up with inflation, meaning that each year that the funding stays the same, the buying power decreases.
Second, what is your definition of properly funded? If you note above, less than 10% of current proposed research is being funded. Less than 10%.
Just because something is "important" doesn't mean money should be uselessly thrown away on it.
Hmmm... You seem to be contradicting yourself. I'm not asking for money to be thrown away. I'm asking that money be spent on something. Nothing is free. If we as a society want cures for diseases, we need to spend money to get them. We can't say, "Well, we want to have our cures, but we want them free". It doesn't work that way.
I admire that Chuck is at least honest in saying that he doesn't think cures are important. That's an intellectually consistent position with the idea that we needn't spend money on research. But your position that we can make cuts to research funding AND at the same time say that what we're cutting is important - it makes no sense.
I'm sorry you don't think cures for diseases are important.
I do not appreciate you butchering my comments and putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Stick to the FACTS.
I do not believe that the government is responsible enough to address finding a cure for anything. And (please correct me if I am wrong) they have not “cured” anything yet.
Cancer research is very important to you. It is not that important to me.
Hmmm... What exactly did I butcher?
And (please correct me if I am wrong) they have not “cured” anything yet.
I'd be delighted to correct you (this is just a short sampling, just off the top of my head, as I am most familiar with infectious disease).
Government funding has been instrumental in the vaccines that have resulted in eradicating smallpox, and in the near eradication of polio.
Government funding has been instrumental in the near 90% survival rate of childhood leukemia.
Government funding has been instrumental in the discovery of several antibiotics (and the latest class, discovered in the last year at Harvard - that will be important in years to come).
Cancer research is very important to you. It is not that important to me.
Hmmm... What exactly did I butcher?
I said cancer, you said I said “disease”. Maybe you do not know the difference between cancer and disease, but I do.
Once again correct me if I am wrong, but Salk found the vaccine to prevent polio, he did not cure it.
The government has not cured childhood leukemia yet, and I am pretty sure the treatments that are used are not patented by NIH.
The government has funded the use of antibiotics to the current point right now that there are many infectious agents that are currently drug resistant and the medical profession has over prescribed unneeded antibiotics to the point of making them useless.
If your lab truly is working on a valuable project and isn’t being funded, you are providing further evidence to my statement:
The government is not responsible enough to address finding a cure for anything.
I admire that Chuck is at least honest
I apologize. I take it back, Chuck. It's clear I was mistaken.
You've made it quite clear that you are intellectually dishonest.
Good luck.
Post a Comment