The National Institutes of Health tackles the sequester: Part II

Last month, we analyzed the raw numbers published by the National Institutes of Health regarding the effects of sequestration. Each institute was able to set its own budget, and each institute has implemented very different strategies to compensating for these cuts. Aside from knowing that the NIH had to cut roughly $1.5 billion from its budget, we have not had specifics on how this would affect the NIH overall.

Yesterday, the NIH released its own agency-wide fact sheet on the effects of sequestration. The sheet says that approximately 700 fewer grants will be awarded, stipends for National Research Service Awards will not increase, and the National Clinical Center will accept roughly 7 percent fewer patients. Other than this, the sheet is fairly light on the specific effects of sequestration. The programs that are to be cut or curtailed have been left to the discretion of the individual institutes and are not mentioned in this fact sheet. Nor are specific cuts to the NIH intramural research program, even though NIH suggests this program will sustain a spending cut similar to that of the extramural community.

While the biomedical community focuses on the NIH and how it responds to sequestration, the real effects of budget cuts will be felt around the country in individual research labs by students, postdocs and faculty members. The ASBMB has created a survey to try to capture how sequestration is affecting the American research enterprise. We strongly encourage you to fill out the survey and tell us your story about how budget cuts have affected you and those around you. Then send the survey to all of the scientists you know—biologists, physicists, sociologists and beyond. We’re interested in everyone’s story! We will compile these stories and take them to Capitol Hill to help make a convincing argument that budget cuts are having a devastating effect on the research enterprise.

One thought on “The National Institutes of Health tackles the sequester: Part II

  1. With the two strikes and your out policy for NIH, I am concerned about submitting a second proposal that was very close to being funded until this is cleared up. That has a huge impact on the science, the potential novelty of the work, supporting students and losing momentum. A really good idea not getting funding because of this event would be devastating. Perhaps the NIH should consider altering/adjusting the two submission rule for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>