Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy

2012; Cell Press; Volume: 151; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.026

1097-4172

Thomas D. Pollard,

Genetically Modified Organisms Research

I explain here why all scientists should feel obligated to do their part to support the community by advocating for the benefits of government investments in scientific research and training. I explain here why all scientists should feel obligated to do their part to support the community by advocating for the benefits of government investments in scientific research and training. The work of most biological scientists depends heavily on governmental funding, and this support stands in competition with every other program that receives government funds. Historically, biologists took for granted that politicians would provide adequate funding, given the virtue of advancing human health. Complacency was the norm because the budgets of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) generally increased at or above the level of inflation during the second half of the 20th century, and the budget of the NIH doubled between 1998 and 2003. Unfortunately, funding has stagnated since 2003, so taking inflation into account, the purchasing power of the NIH budget has declined about 20% over the last decade (AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2012AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (2012). AAAS Report XXXVII, Research and Development 2013 (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2013/).Google Scholar; also see http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ for regular updates.) Times have changed for the worse for two reasons. First, the global economic recession has done real damage to science. Weak tax revenues and growing deficits have led politicians to compromise funding for research in spite of the established benefit of basic research for stimulating economic growth. The situation in the United States for 2013 is particularly dire. The failure of Congress to adopt a deficit reduction program in 2011 resulted in a fall-back option called sequestration, which may reduce federal funding across the board by 8% on January 1, 2013. If this comes to pass, we face widespread unemployment in the biological research community and the loss of many valuable research programs. Second, although US citizens still hold science and scientists in high esteem (Masci, 2009Masci, D. (2009) Public opinion on religion and science in the United States (http://www.pewforum.org/science-and-bioethics/public-opinion-on-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states.aspx).Google Scholar), some politicians use ideological opposition to scientific findings (evolution and climate change to cite two examples) to take anti-science positions. In our present situation, advocacy for support of science must be a priority, perhaps even an obligation, for every biologist. Our community must take responsibility to convince politicians that funding biomedical research will benefit not only human health, but also our economic well being. The objective of advocacy for biomedical research is to help elected officials focus on the merits of our work, which is quite different from partisan politics. Voting and participation in electoral politics are separate obligations of citizens in a democracy. The US Congress decides how much money to appropriate for all federal programs (Box 1). Very few scientists hold elected positions at either the state or national level. For example, the 112th US Congress (2011–2012) includes four scientists (all in the House of Representatives) and 24 MDs (5 in the Senate and 19 in the House). They are outnumbered by 200 lawyers (52 in the Senate and 148 in the House) and 209 businesspeople (28 in the Senate and 181 in the House) (CQ Roll Call (Congressional Quarterly Roll Call), 2010CQ Roll Call (Congressional Quarterly Roll Call) (2010). Guide to the New Congress (www.scribd.com/doc/48149843/guide-to-the-new-congress).Google Scholar).Box 1The Pathways of Actions Required to Fund a Research Grant by the Federal Government and by the NIHLeft Pathway. The Steps by the Federal Government to Appropriate FundsFederal appropriations in the US are made annually, so each step is required every year. Congressional committees are renewed every 2 years after each national election. The first three steps take place reliably in the winter and early spring, but the later steps are often delayed beyond the end of the fiscal year, September 30, owing to disagreements within and between the two houses of Congress.(1) The White House Office of Management and Budget assembles a financial plan for the entire federal government, which the President presents to Congress as a proposed budget. The federal agencies advocate for themselves inside the executive branch during the formulation of the President’s budget. External advocates can also work with the administration on this plan. Presidents often submit low budget proposals for NIH, with assurance that Congress will improve the appropriation.(2) The House and Senate Budget Committees create their own budget proposals, setting a total level of spending and dividing that money among the large subdivisions of government such as Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and so on. Depending on which party has the Presidency and controls the two houses of Congress, these budget committees may build upon or ignore the President’s budget when creating their own budgets. These budgets put overall constraints on federal expenditures. External advocates may attempt to influence this division of total spending, but ideology usually predominates at this stage.(3) All appropriations bills originate in the House. Subcommittees of the appropriations committees of the House and Senate consider how to divide their total spending allotment established by their Budget Committees. At hearings, they receive input from leaders of the various federal agencies as well as external advocates. Individuals and groups also work behind the scenes with subcommittee staff to push for favorable outcomes. Committee chairs have considerable influence in drafting appropriation bills that may include stipulations about how the money is to be spent, so each program requires support from these individuals.1(4) Full appropriations committees review subcommittee bills before sending them for consideration by their respective houses of Congress.(5) Members of the House and Senate debate, amend, and vote on appropriation bills. This is the main chance for most legislators to weigh in on appropriations bills, given that few of them serve on appropriations committees or subcommittees. If Congress fails to pass appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year, they approve one or more “continuing resolutions” to fund agencies at the level of the previous year for a limited time, sometimes stretching to months. These delays are awkward for the funding agencies because they do not know how much money they have to operate. This uncertainty can delay funding of specific grants and programs.(6) Appropriations bills from the House and Senate are never identical, so the next step is for powerful lawmakers from both houses to form a joint Conference Committee to reconcile the bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee). Members of these conference committees can strongly influence appropriations at this step, emphasizing the ongoing need for help from champions of both houses.(7) Both houses vote to approve the compromise bill.(8) The President then signs or vetoes the entire bill. If vetoed, the bill goes back to Congress.(9) Agencies divide their appropriations among their programs, taking into account restrictions or specific funding allotments for specific programs mandated in the appropriation bill.Right Pathway. The Steps in Funding a Grant by NIHThe internal review process differs at NSF, but other steps are similar to NIH. (a) The scientist writes and submits a grant application, (b) which is assigned to an Institute and Initial Review Group (study section), (c) reviewed by the IRG (with feedback to the applicant), (d) and reviewed by the Institute staff and Council before (e) funds are transferred to the applicant’s institution (f) to set up a research account to pay for personnel, supplies, equipment, services, etc. required to do the research.1In the current session of Congress, appropriations committees have the following leadership. The chairs of the Full Appropriations Committees are Representative Harold Rogers (R, KY) and Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D, HI). The chairs of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (responsible for NSF) are Representative Frank R. Wolf (R, VA) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (Democrat, MD). The chairs of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (responsible for NIH) are Representative Denny Rehberg (R, MT) and Senator Tom Harkin (D, IA). Other members of these committees can be found at http://appropriations.house.gov/ and http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/.