[an error occurred while processing this directive]
September 5, 2003
The House of Representatives came within a razor-thin margin of passing an amendment that would have eliminated funding for five peer-reviewed National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants during a July 10 floor debate of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill (H.R. 2660). Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), the amendment's lead sponsor, cited the research grants as objectionable because they are "much less worthy of taxpayer funding than the kind of research the NIH is generally doing to cure devastating diseases." The Toomey amendment, cosponsored with Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN), failed by only two votes (212-210).
The five research grants in question all involve subjects that relate to public health, although the majority touched on sexual behavior including sexual risk-taking, the health of transgender American Indians, HIV-AIDS and prostitution, sexual dysfunction in older men, and the relationship between human population and the environment in China. Rep. Toomey decried, "Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, who thinks this stuff up? And, worse, who decides to actually fund these sorts of things?"
Rising to the defense of the nation's largest nondefense research agency was Labor-HHS subcommittee chairman Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) who warned his colleagues that defunding federal research "would set a dangerous precedent and put a chill on medical research if we start to micromanage individual NIH grants."
Rep. David Obey (D-WI), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, was decidedly more blunt in his criticism of the amendment. "The day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in the House of Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country. We have no business making political judgments about those kinds of issues."
In fiscal year 2003, the NIH received $26.2 billion in federal funds making it the second largest supporter of federal research after the Department of Defense. Subcommittee chairman Regula noted that NIH manages a two-tiered peer-review system that is mandated by the Public Health Service Act and receives over 120,000 research grant applications. Of the number of grant submissions vying for federal funding, only 30 percent are awarded by the 27 distinct institutes and centers that comprise the NIH campus created to support the nation's public health research goal. Regula urged his colleagues "to resist the temptation to select a few grants for defunding because they do not like the sound of them based on one paragraph."
Given the closeness of the roll call vote, the temptation was apparently difficult to withstand. One Member said, "I would suggest that there is a lot of funding out there from people like Larry Flynt or others, but we should not be asking the American taxpayer to fund this kind of thing." Obey countered that he "would rather trust the judgment of 10 doctors sitting around a table than I would 10 politicians sitting around a table when we decide how to allocate taxpayer money for those grants."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Copyright 2003 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. |