Last month, Congress passed a resolution to avoid a government shutdown but only to fund operations through early December. With a contentious election less than two weeks away, our government-funded priorities and programs face a future as uncertain as any in a modern democracy.
And this uncertainty carries significant risk to our health.
{mosads}While our elected representatives finally reached an agreement on the urgent need to fight the Zika virus, we must not lose sight of the long-neglected, long-term need to adequately support the vital biomedical research we need to develop new vaccines and treatments for rapidly emerging diseases like Zika, among countless other health challenges.
I am a senior at Yale studying molecular biophysics and biochemistry with the privilege of learning the methods and technologies of evolving biomedical science while conducting research on nicotine addiction in a neurobiology lab. Even when working well past midnight in the depths of exam season, I love it. However, for the first time in my life I’m doubting my decision to become a scientist. Around me, I see a generation of my peers equally hesitant to dedicate themselves to a precarious system.
We have witnessed the purchasing power for the National Institutes of Health, the single largest source of biomedical research funding, fall by 22 percent over the course of the Bush and Obama administrations amidst a climate of political polarization which shows no signs of abating. Over this time, the number of NIH-funded grants has shrunk from one in three to one in six. National Science Foundation data show fewer than one in six biology Ph.D. recipients land a tenure-track job. Those who want to be a scientist are faced with a system that expects students to spend six years scraping by on graduate stipends and many more years making slightly more money in post-doctoral positions — all with the nagging knowledge that they will most likely be forced to start their career again in their mid-30s.
The news hasn’t all been grim. The latest proposed budget increase for the NIH would manage to outpace the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) for a second year in a row. But this increase remains tentative. And it does not include Vice President Joe Biden’s $680 million impassioned proposal for a “moonshot” to cure cancer. The fragile progress toward more sustained NIH funding increases was made possible by the temporary removal of government spending caps in the Congressional budget deal made last fall. When this deal expires next year, there is no indication that it will be renewed — particularly in a post-election divided Congress.
As the Wall Street Journal reported in September, “Whoever wins in November will enjoy far less latitude to spend money or cut taxes than any president since World War II.” They cited increasing deficits despite a growing economy and the commitment of nearly almost 2/3 of all spending to pay interest on the national debt and fund mandatory programs such as Medicare and Social Security. It was fiscal pressure and political brinkmanship that led to the decade-long stagnation of the NIH budget, and in the long-run neither of these factors seem likely to go away.
Not long ago, I was drinking coffee with a friend and asked why she was applying to medical school despite her love and talent for research. She shrugged. “I need stability,” she said. I’ve heard the same sentiment echoed again and again in dining halls, in between classes, and in the quieter corners of labs. For students with significant debt or a family to support, a career in science would seem almost irresponsible, particularly when the same skill set fostered by science can lead to a stable and rewarding career in other areas.
I want nothing more than to pursue a career in science. Vice President Biden has the right idea. With public support of biomedical research, it is it possible to do incredible things. But we need a serious commitment, such as the gradual doubling of the NIH budget accomplished by President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1994. If the federal government does not rededicate our country to advancing biomedical research, we risk losing an entire generation of scientists and the contributions they might have made to our economy, health, and well-being.
Benjamin Fait is a scientific communications fellow at Women’s Health Research at Yale.
The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.