Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1999;99:2604-2605

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SoRelle, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by SoRelle, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health policy and outcome research

(Circulation. 1999;99:2604-2605.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.


Cardiovascular News

Proposed NIH Budget Increase Too Small to Meet Research Needs

Ruth SoRelle, MPH Circulation Newswriter

In an era of supposed budget surpluses and debt reduction, most researchers in the field of biomedical science had anticipated that the planned doubling of the budget for the National Institutes of Health by the year 2003 would remain on track. However, after the State of the Union address by President Clinton, most were chagrined to realize that he proposed to increase the NIH budget by just slightly more than 2%.

Compared with the nearly 15% increase in the fiscal year (FY) 1999 budget, the increase was not even steady state, and it prompted a rush to shore up the advances gained in previous years. "This is a unique time in the history of biomedical science," said William Brinkley, PhD, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). "With all the contributions of genomic science, we could develop a new paradigm in medicine." However, the ability to take advantage of the new knowledge will depend to a large extent on the amount of money available for research.

In FY 1999, it seemed the federal government concurred. Although President Clinton had suggested only an 8.4% increase in his State of the Union address, Congress ended up bolstering that sum to 15%. Harold Varmus, PhD, director of the NIH, assured Congress that it was money that would be well spent.

The 2% proposed for FY 2000 will not keep the momentum going in that direction. "That is less than most other governmental agencies or even the gross national product," . . . [Full Text of this Article]