The Future of Scientific Research in the US

[Empty Hands]

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends about $31 billion dollars funding biomedical research in the US. As part of that 15% "non-defense discretionary" part of the budget, the NIH and other scientific agencies are being cut back, as part of a long term situation of funding stagnation or cuts. As a consequence, grant renewals are well below 10% in most cases, pushing promising young scientists (like myself, promising or not who knows) out of academia and into industry.

Now, there is nothing wrong with industry, they are an integral part of the puzzle, performing translational research like designing drugs against targets identified and explained in academia. Basic research just isn't in the industrial profile. I would thus contend that the stagnation of academic scientific research will also lead to a stagnation in industrial research. Up till now, the US has been a scientific powerhouse, overwhelming the rest of the world with our output. That may change, particularly as asian countries like China and South Korea are investing heavily in scientific research.

So in an era of austerity and budget cuts, do you think scientific research is worth saving? Would you be willing to pay slightly higher (and I do mean slight, the entire NIH budget is worth about 16 B2 bombers) taxes in order to preserve our scientific enterprise? Do you think we will suffer economically, technically, or medically if our scientific enterprise slips behind the rest of the world? If you don't mind seeing science cut, what do you think is more important in its place?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

So in an era of austerity and budget cuts, do you think scientific research is worth saving?
Would you be willing to pay slightly higher (and I do mean slight, the entire NIH budget is worth about 16 B2 bombers) taxes in order to preserve our scientific enterprise?
Do you think we will suffer economically, technically, or medically if our scientific enterprise slips behind the rest of the world?
If you don't mind seeing science cut, what do you think is more important in its place?

In order of your questions...
Yes and No... Companies will continue to research, but they can fund it themselves, I am tired of funding them, then when they come up with a breakthrough they keep the profits themselves. If we fund it we should own the breakthroughs.. but that wont happen. so no Funding imo.
No I would not be willing to pay 1 cent into any fund that promotes general scientific research, however I have and will continue to donate a fairly sizeable sum of money to research causes I find important, and suggest everyone do the same directly to specific causes.
Umm wake up we already have suffered economically, and technically behind other parts of the world.
My personal freedom to do with my money what I want is more important then funding science as we do now.

 

[Twin Fist]

we are broke

wether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant

we are broke

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Private enterprise will fund scientific research, but not that which holds no profit potential for them. This is common sense.

The question is whether or not society has an obligation to fund research into things which are for the good of the people, but which private industry will not fund nor research.

I tend to vote 'yes'. In this sense, I am not conservative.

However, I sincerely doubt that this type of funding will be continued; more's the pity. But the budget must be balanced, and the left dares not take on the right on every issue. They'll let this go without a fight.

 

[Touch Of Death]

we are broke

wether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant

we are broke

Wouldn't the US have an viable auto industry we had kept up on R&D? A lot of good those stupid, "Eat Your Import" bumper stickers did us.
Sean

 

[Twin Fist]

the auto industry can pay for it's own research, as can genetics companies, etc

the government should not be the source of funding for research.

 

[Empty Hands]

the government should not be the source of funding for research.

Why not? This is research that won't be done otherwise, which benefits everyone, and has positive economic, medical and technological benefits. And it's comparatively cheap. Would you really deny an unambiguous good simply because your ideology claims the government shouldn't be involved? If the government could spend $10 billion dollars tomorrow and cure cancer would you still say the government shouldn't do it?

This point addresses Lucky's contention as well.

Cost/benefit analysis would suggest that other things in the budget (like 3 unfinanced wars) should probably go before scientific research.

 

[WC_lun]

I think solid scientific reseasrch is one way in which we invest in our future economy. However, more and more it is becoming apparent that this investment in the future does not mean as much to some when education for those who would be doing the research is slashed greatly.

 

[Empty Hands]

However, I sincerely doubt that this type of funding will be continued; more's the pity. But the budget must be balanced, and the left dares not take on the right on every issue. They'll let this go without a fight.

That is what is most frustrating about this budget debate. Every single thing the federal government does except for social security, medicare and defense could end tomorrow and the budget would still not be balanced. In fact, it wouldn't even be close to balanced. And yet these small budget items are the only things the politicians want to touch (except to be fair, Paul Ryan, although his plan would increase costs long term).

 

[Twin Fist]

you cannot CUT SPENDING and increase costs

doesnt happen that way

SS must change
Medicare must change
Defense must change

 

[Empty Hands]

you cannot CUT SPENDING and increase costs

You can if you decrease revenue, which the Ryan plan does.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That is what is most frustrating about this budget debate. Every single thing the federal government does except for social security, medicare and defense could end tomorrow and the budget would still not be balanced. In fact, it wouldn't even be close to balanced. And yet these small budget items are the only things the politicians want to touch (except to be fair, Paul Ryan, although his plan would increase costs long term).

We vote for them. Or not. We tend to vote our interests, and most of us want the government to give us or provide certain things and we do not want to pay for them. We can complain about that, but it remains what it has been; piggies rooting at the trough and reacting angrily when anyone asks them where the money comes to pay for it. Left, right, middle, there are no exceptions. Everyone has their sacred cows, everyone thinks someone else should be reasonable and allow their cherished programs to be cut.

 

[WC_lun]

you cannot CUT SPENDING and increase costs

doesnt happen that way

SS must change
Medicare must change
Defense must change

..but will these things change? Each side has its sacred cows that they don't want touched. For example the left does not want to touch Medicare, where there is some savings that could be had. The right has defense spending. They'll be happy to turn Medicare into a voucher program, but don't dare touch the bloated beast that is defense spending. Each side seems more than willing to cut programs to the bone as long as it isn't something they realy care about. Until both sides get serious, realizing that both sides of the equation must be addressed and painful decisions must be made by all, not just the other side, we will continue to mortgage our children's future.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

the auto industry can pay for it's own research, as can genetics companies, etc

the government should not be the source of funding for research.

It's a valid point.

It's also a valid point to note that that private industry will NOT pay for research into things at which it can make no profit.

Drug companies are a major case in point. There's very little private research going on in areas of news uses for previously-patented drugs in which the patents have expired. They won't do it - because they cannot re-patent it. So perhaps viable antibiotic drugs that might save us from a pandemic of super bugs won't be developed. They won't fund science into diseases that are not common - even if they invent the drugs, they can't sell enough of them to make their money back. People with diabetes, like me, have it easy. One in five is pre-diabetic; the drug companies love us long time. Serious diseases that affect relatively few people goes begging.

It is also a valid point to say that the government has no mandate to provide such research. I well know it, and I agree on a conceptual level.

On the other hand, if the government does not, no one will. Saying 'private industry' like a mantra doesn't magically make it happen - in many cases, it just won't. Is that what we want?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Why not? This is research that won't be done otherwise, which benefits everyone, and has positive economic, medical and technological benefits. And it's comparatively cheap. Would you really deny an unambiguous good simply because your ideology claims the government shouldn't be involved? If the government could spend $10 billion dollars tomorrow and cure cancer would you still say the government shouldn't do it?

This point addresses Lucky's contention as well.

Cost/benefit analysis would suggest that other things in the budget (like 3 unfinanced wars) should probably go before scientific research.

Not really..
the problem I have is them taking my money to pay peopel to research it, then when those people use it to find a new medication to make someone live with a disease rather then cure it, and then allows the company the person works for to keep the rights and charge massive profits for it.. no thanks.
Like I said they can pay for their own research.

I would have no problem with it being changed drastically.. perhaps using money as a reward rather then the means of supporting research...
10 billion dollar reward to the company that cures cancer, not makes another magical pill that just prolongs the results of cancer for a decade or two...
I would have to think about it, but the way I understand it now, it is basically a free source of funding for private companies to use to and profit from without any clause to repay it, or pay it forward in the form of free medications for people.. or anything.. no
It would be the same as giving the auto industry billions to research gas mileage improvements... how dangling a 10 billion dollar prize for the first company to mass produce hydrogen cell cars, or some other environmentally friendly self sustaining option?

the wars comment? I dont see a problem with the war itself persay but in how they were run. We could be much more efficient, get the job done, and not spend billions of out citizens dollars rebuilding the place.... once again the victor the spoils... I am not a big fan of the victor pays for a complete rebuild..

 

[Twin Fist]

no funding

tax credits for firms doing the research instead

It's a valid point.

It's also a valid point to note that that private industry will NOT pay for research into things at which it can make no profit.

Drug companies are a major case in point. There's very little private research going on in areas of news uses for previously-patented drugs in which the patents have expired. They won't do it - because they cannot re-patent it. So perhaps viable antibiotic drugs that might save us from a pandemic of super bugs won't be developed. They won't fund science into diseases that are not common - even if they invent the drugs, they can't sell enough of them to make their money back. People with diabetes, like me, have it easy. One in five is pre-diabetic; the drug companies love us long time. Serious diseases that affect relatively few people goes begging.

It is also a valid point to say that the government has no mandate to provide such research. I well know it, and I agree on a conceptual level.

On the other hand, if the government does not, no one will. Saying 'private industry' like a mantra doesn't magically make it happen - in many cases, it just won't. Is that what we want?

 

[Empty Hands]

no funding

tax credits for firms doing the research instead

How is this different in practice from government funding research?

 

[WC_lun]

Using the example of the drug industry, in some cases the private sector actively pursues stagnation, even at the cost of the public and the economy. Immunosuppresants, the drug used after transplants to keep the new organs from rejecting are very, very, expensive. The newest drug on the market is almost 20 years old and has some not so pleasant side effects. There is no generic version of the drug. The economy and the government absorbs the cost of these not so perfect drugs because the drug company is invested in keeping the status quo for that drug. They make tons of money with little expense. You can't really blame the drug companies for nt wanting to pay for the expense of research when they already have a good thing going. However, we all pay more for thier ability to focus on profits, perhaps more than the research would cost.

 

[Nomad]

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends about $31 billion dollars funding biomedical research in the US. As part of that 15% "non-defense discretionary" part of the budget, the NIH and other scientific agencies are being cut back, as part of a long term situation of funding stagnation or cuts. As a consequence, grant renewals are well below 10% in most cases, pushing promising young scientists (like myself, promising or not who knows) out of academia and into industry.

Now, there is nothing wrong with industry, they are an integral part of the puzzle, performing translational research like designing drugs against targets identified and explained in academia. Basic research just isn't in the industrial profile. I would thus contend that the stagnation of academic scientific research will also lead to a stagnation in industrial research. Up till now, the US has been a scientific powerhouse, overwhelming the rest of the world with our output. That may change, particularly as asian countries like China and South Korea are investing heavily in scientific research.

So in an era of austerity and budget cuts, do you think scientific research is worth saving? Would you be willing to pay slightly higher (and I do mean slight, the entire NIH budget is worth about 16 B2 bombers) taxes in order to preserve our scientific enterprise? Do you think we will suffer economically, technically, or medically if our scientific enterprise slips behind the rest of the world? If you don't mind seeing science cut, what do you think is more important in its place?

A lot of the big pharmaceutical companies (which I can speak of with some confidence) do have broad-based programs in many areas that have traditionally been termed "basic research", including genomics, proteomics (figuring out the precise roles of different proteins), new target identification and validation, and so on. Of course, part of the purpose of these programs is to develop areas where they can have a competitive advantage, such as being the first company to develop a drug on a novel biochemical target, so there is a monetary component, but the view is quite long.

This is not to belittle the role of academic research in any way, especially since there are plenty of new areas of research that don't (yet) warrant a big investment from industry, but which could certainly lead to major advances down the road. I do think the relationship between academia and industry is more symbiotic than parasitic (as some seem to think), and note that a huge amount of academic funding currently comes from industry, not just the NIH.

Certainly, any funding cuts hurt the universities, can have a big impact on the research landscape in academia, and have already jeopardized the US's once grand statement of being the world leader in many fields of research. Unfortunately, what will likely be lost is that research which doesn't have a (relatively) quick or (relatively) large return rate for the investors.

I absolutely don't want research (or education) funding to be cut, because these lead very directly to better quality of life for many people. I'd rather we scrapped a few of those B2 bombers; the defense budget is vastly bloated and we continue to pay for two (plus) wars a long way from home. In my opinion, any attempt at trimming the budget that ignores this component is deeply flawed... Defense budget for 2012 is sitting somewhere between 1 and 1.4 Trillion (compared to total NIH funding of 32 billion, and education funding of 77 billion... combined, less than 1/10th what we're spending on the military)

 

[Nomad]

It's a valid point.

Drug companies are a major case in point. There's very little private research going on in areas of news uses for previously-patented drugs in which the patents have expired. They won't do it - because they cannot re-patent it. So perhaps viable antibiotic drugs that might save us from a pandemic of super bugs won't be developed. They won't fund science into diseases that are not common - even if they invent the drugs, they can't sell enough of them to make their money back. People with diabetes, like me, have it easy. One in five is pre-diabetic; the drug companies love us long time. Serious diseases that affect relatively few people goes begging.

It is also a valid point to say that the government has no mandate to provide such research. I well know it, and I agree on a conceptual level.

On the other hand, if the government does not, no one will. Saying 'private industry' like a mantra doesn't magically make it happen - in many cases, it just won't. Is that what we want?

While much of this is true, some of it (at least) is changing. There is now substantial research at many smaller biotech companies and big pharma companies into "orphaned" diseases, such as Bill describes, and this is growing.

One of the reasons for this is altruistic; people with horrible but rare diseases should be able to see relief, and believe it or not, most people working for pharmaceutical companies really want to help people and make a difference in the state of worldwide health.

The second reason is not altruistic, in that many biological pathways affect more than one process or disease state. Thus it's possible to design a drug specifically to treat one fairly rare but serious disease that may have a well-understood biochemical pathway, and later to expand the drug (or related compounds) to other conditions. This has been done with huge success with Gleevec, which was designed to treat Chronic myelogenous leukemia, a rare cancer of white blood cells that affects a relatively small population (< 1-2 in 100000 worldwide), but was later expanded to 9 other types of cancer (some of which are much more prevalent) and had worldwide sales of nearly $4 billion last year.

There are other examples; for instance, one compound that was initially designed and tested against a very rare and serious skin condition that was later found to be useful in cases of severe psoriasis, and so on.