« | »

GOP Cuts Would Kill NIH Drug Research!

A Bloomberg News article pointedly picked up by the Washington Post:

NIH’s day care center.

GOP budget cuts would hurt research, NIH says

By Alex Wayne
Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Spending cuts proposed by the man who is likely to become the new House majority leader would reduce scientists’ chances of winning U.S. grants by nearly half, demoralizing researchers and slowing development of new drugs, according to the director of the National Institutes of Health.

Republicans taking control of the House next year would roll back funding to agencies, including NIH, to fiscal 2008 levels, according to a proposal by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is likely to become the chamber’s majority leader. That would equate to a 4.3 percent, or $1.3 billion, cut to the agency’s $30.8 billion annual budget.

The reduction would be "very devastating" and would demoralize scientists, whose odds of winning a research grant from the agency could drop to about 10 percent, NIH Director Francis Collins said in an interview

NIH-funded research led to the development of drugs that include the cancer therapies Avastin, sold by Roche Holding AG, and Novartis AG’s Gleevec, said Jennifer Zeitzer, lobbyist for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda

Why should taxpayers be paying for their research and development for ‘Big Pharma’?

Republicans who interpret the results of the midterm elections as a mandate to cut funding for NIH "will be in for a rude awakening," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in an e-mail. He is chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds Collins’s agency

This is what the Democrats always do whenever there is any talk about spending cuts.

They always hide behind women and children – and the NIH.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, November 10th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “GOP Cuts Would Kill NIH Drug Research!”

  1. NoNeoCommies says:

    Heaven forbid that “Scientists” be “Demoralized”!
    It’s the public that are supposed to suffer while the scientists get rich doing things like lying about global warming or telling us there will be no stem cell research or new drugs unless the government funds it.

  2. Astravogel says:


  3. proreason says:

    Scientists do research?

    Isn’t the scientific method the process of dreaming up a conclusion and then inventing some data to prove it?

    What is the research for?

  4. David says:

    For information purposes the complete report of who and for what purpose NIH research money is granted can be found here:
    I didn’t see any that were pharmaceutical companies. Vast majority are medical research universities and hospitals.
    One of my colleagues received a smaller grant from NIH. His work focuses on material testing for replacing the fluid inside spinal disks as an alternative to spinal fusion after a herniated disk. Pharmaceuticals wouldn’t likely fund this kind of research. It is far more profitable to continue the current system of injections and vertebrae fusion.

    I am not saying that funding shouldn’t be cut just that, if we as a nation are going to tighten our belts, we need to understand that some beneficial things will be lost. Only democrats promises cuts that have no effect.

    • proreason says:

      But David, how did cars ever replace horses? Why would anybody ever foresake the lucrative businesses of making wagons, raising and training horse, picking up the horse poop, etc etc etc. Particularly considering that cars killed people, blew up, stopped running, had thousands of mechical parts, required gasoline, etc etc etc.

      Luckily, the federal government funded the early automotive pioneers.

      Otherwise I would certainly have become a horse poop entrepreneur.

    • David says:

      Lol, Pro. I have to say I think you have some of the best wit on this site. Reminds of Coulter sometimes.
      While I know there is a pretty well known economist who would say I was wrong. It seems like some research/ advancements benefit the individual producer and thus the rest of society (Adam Smith). While there are other advancements that do not really benefit a particular individual (or company) but rather the whole society.
      A car is a great example. Research into making faster, safer, more reliable cars has a direct incentive on the producer in the form of more sells. Benefits the producer, benefits the society.
      Now on the other hand, in some 70 years there hasn’t been a significant change to the way people drive cars. This is interesting compared with other technologies. Consider the time traveling computer technician from the 1960’s. He could drive a modern car just fine but would be dumbfounded at the computer sitting at his desk. Is the reason for that lack of development in this area because we have found the “best” way of operating a car? Or because it is financial suicide to try something different (see Ford Edsel). If government funded research found a better way of operating a car that could save thousands of lives a year (hypothetically of course) this would benefit society but not an individual company.

      Without government funded research we had no Nuke. We would have no internet. Many things that benefit society first and then producers who are smart enough to take advantage of them (without risking investing in them).

    • proreason says:

      Thanks David. One of the best things about Steve’s site is the numerous posters who are so funny. The regulars are all worth a couple of laughs a day. Some of LD’s stuff makes you fall off your chair.

      ps: I’m not dead certain against government funding of research, just like i’m not dead certain against financial industry regulation.

      The problem is that our Statist Rulers have a stake in the game, and there are times when their lust for power overcomes common sense. As in lots of times.

      In fact, I think, as you say, there are times when government funding is smart long-term policy. The space program had tons of useful spinoffs, as one example. Medical research may be another. I just don’t know enough about it to know whether it is justified or how much is justified, so my default position is on the side of free markets. If that viewpoint prevailed, it would hold down the research into the sex life of bees, I think.

      But I would prefer that the allocation government funding to specific projects be controlled by industry experts rather than politicians. Politicians should establish guidelines because their expertise (ought to be) national priorities. For example the politicians should say spend 10% of the allocated research budget on nano-technologies, 25% for medical research, etc. Then a panel of medical experts would say, spend 1 million this year on David’s disc rejuvination research; spend 2 million on the sex life of bees, etc.

  5. wardmama4 says:

    What disgusts me is the ‘fear mongering’ tactic of the DNC to imply that a cut, any cut means the end of the program(s) as we know it. That is how the privatizing of Social Security became a moot point (to allow them to continue to swish SS taxation into the general fund and continue to allow SS to hurtle headlong into utter and complete collapse (don’t believe me, take a gander at Freddie & Fannie)). A 1% cut of everything would be fair, just and a start. Then a line by line budget assessment for the waste, fraud and payback earmarks that do nothing but force locals to continue to vote for tax dollar sucking scum to exist in DC.

    The other lie perpetrated by both sides of the aisle is that nothing in DC can be repealed, closed, canceled or done away with. Easy, peasy – Don’t fund it. Ever. Again.

    If Americans would pay for their health insurance as they do their car insurance, pay their taxes at the end of the year in one check – This crappola tax and spend fest in DC would end yesterday. We would see exactly how much of our hard earned money these sleaze bags are absconding with. Take a look at each and every bill you get – Subtract from the payment due all the taxes – and then consider – IS IT WORTH IT?

    And under The Won – it is only going to get worse, unless the Republicans stand up against this Lame Duck onslaught and then the new Congress does the right thing.

  6. canary says:

    The National Institute of Health is busy on new procedure to remove dark spots like circles under the eyes for the rich. I saw this on the news, when a reporter offered herself. No botox or cutting.


    The bleepers can study the drugs they are handing out like candy. Some drugs have only undergone one
    pathetic test of a handful of people. Don’t just love TV drug adds that end with a list of how they can kill you.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “Don’t just love TV drug adds that end with a list of how they can kill you.”

      Canary……..I draw the line at anal seepage!!

  7. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

    “Republicans taking control of the House next year would roll back funding to agencies, including NIH, to fiscal 2008 levels”

    So what…. there was no meaningful research done in 2008 due to lack of funds? Cut all grants targeted towards the AGW myth and you would have a surplus.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »