Trends In U.S. Funding For Biomedical Research

The full report is available to be downloaded, or the hard copy can be ordered through the Center for the Health Professions.

Trends in U.S. Funding For Biomedical Research - produced by the Center for the Health Professions at the University of California, San Francisco, and funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts - concludes that while the National Institutes of Health budget continues to grow annually, recent increases have not outpaced the rate of inflation to the same extent that they did in earlier years. At the same time, more applicants are seeking research funds, while the available number of grants is shrinking.

According to the report, the biomedical research climate is changing dramatically, due primarily to three major factors. The report shows:

The growth rate of federal dollars to support research has slowed. Indeed, there is pressure to reduce federal funding for research. At the same time, more researchers are vying for a smaller number of available grants.
Academic health centers and medical schools -- which have long supported and conducted much of the nation's biomedical research -- are facing fierce market pressures that threaten to seriously impair their sources of funding. Specifically, their clinical revenue that helps to support research is endangered as more and more patients move to managed care.
There may be more researchers than positions available. The report cites a separate study that indicates 22 percent of new science and engineering doctorates may not be able to find employment in the near future.

As a result of these changes, the nation's newest researchers are faced with an almost impossible task: competing with seasoned investigators for a piece of the dwindling funding pool.

In 1994, $32.9 billion went into biomedical research, with federal and state government providing $14.6 billion -- $10.3 billion from NIH alone -- and $17.1 billion from private sector funds, including pharmaceutical companies and charities. Another $500 million is provided by private foundations, with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute offering $258 million.

In some cases, foundation and private funding is increasing. The Pew Charitable Trusts recently awarded more than $4 million to 22 promising biomedical researchers. This is the first time in 12 years that the Trusts have been able to expand their four-year grant supports from 20 scholars to 22. This was made possible through a contribution of $485,000 over the four-year period from Merck & Company, Inc. in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.

The report urges foundations to consider two approaches in their leadership role:

to study and understand the changes facing biomedical research now.
to fill a growing need for public education and discourse. As science answers more fundamental questions about life and develops techniques to manipulate natural processes, moral, social, religious, economic and ethical issues will arise. This could lead to public misunderstandings or mistrust on how to use these scientific capacities wisely.

The report also calls for the scientific community to reposition itself as the biomedical research funding base continues to change. Key issues that need consideration include:

the role of federal investment in the development of the biotechnology industry
the size and content of graduate training in the biomedical sciences
the use of research grants to support investigators' salaries
methods other than training grants to fund personnel for research laboratories
examination of the issues surrounding increased private research and development investments
the relationship between research and education at all levels
creation of diverse career pathways for doctorally trained scientists, and
the broader economic impact of investments in research and scientific education, both positive and negative