Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The AAU cuts through the OMB's attempt to make increases below the rate of inflation (3.3%) into a sizable increase. The OMB claims a 7.5% increase in research funding, which partly results from no longer having to cut half a year of funding for NIAID grants to pay for the purchase of anthrax vaccine. (That is, if you do what you committed to do in the first place after cutting back on that commitment previously, it's a big increase. That's kind of like calling the sunset provision gimmicks in various tax cut bills a tax increase when the provisions take effect.) Other ways of increasing funding comes from the completion of new construction of biodefense buildings. To quote the AAU...
The Administration also indicates that the number of new grants will rise from 10,165 in FY2003 to 10,509 in FY2004, an increase of 344 grants, or 3 percent. New bioterrorism grants would rise from 338 to 661; new non-bioterrorism grants would stay essentially flat (9,827 in FY2003; 9,848 in FY2004).Also, in future years, it is proposed that NIH budget growth will be lower than the rate of inflation, in effect giving back much of the gains started when it was proposed in 1998 that the NIH budget double in 5 years.
To increase the number of new grants, NIH plans to fund non-competing continuation grants (26,958) in FY2004 at slightly less than their committed levels, and less than biomedical inflation, which is 3.3 percent. Competing grants would rise by just one percent from the previous year. In sum, the budget proposes to fund more, thinner, grants.
In short, a highly unimpressive funding effort for a gubmint program that even many conservatives believe to be highly effective. It's also quite depressing for people like me who would be looking to NIH for basic research grants, only to find more and more people competing for the same number of grants.