Guns or Buffer

Abstract

BioTechniquesVol. 43, No. 2 From the EditorOpen AccessGuns or BufferU.S. funding for life science research has flatlined, and only concerted action can resuscitate it. The next generation of biology is at stake.Douglas McCormickDouglas McCormickBioTechniquesSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:16 May 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000112527AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail When I was a kid, dinosaurs walked the earth, and at night we'd huddle in our caves watching Walter Cronkite report (in black and white) on Civil Rights marches and the war in Vietnam. There was a lot of talk about guns or butter, two items I would not have readily connected. The phrase summed up the competition for resources between social programs and military materiel. By promising “guns and butter,” Lyndon B. Johnson tried to assure the electorate that conflict in Southeast Asia would not derail Great Society projects at home.It was only much later that I learned that Johnson's speech-writers did not coin the phrase. The guns-or-butter duality may have originated while the U.S. was debating entering World War I. The nation's munitions makers (the guns) and agricultural fertilizer factories (the butter) vied for allocations of nitrates (first from Chilean guano, and then from synthetic chemical processes). The guns won (prompting William Jennings Bryan to resign from the State Department and audition for Inherit the Wind). A quick check of the New York Times archive shows that the phrase seems to bubble up whenever war looms; it's a leading indicator of 20th and 21st century conflict.The crisis that confronts us now, though, is “guns or buffer.”Funding Dry SpellThough NIH funding increased rapidly from 1999 through 2003, it's clear that we've been suffering a funding drought since 2004. The dry spell looks likely to continue through 2008, at least. War in Iraq and Afghanistan, ideological antipathy to science, forbidden avenues of inquiry, and an increasing addiction to earmarking even basic science, have all taken their toll. The National Institutes of Health research budget has stayed flat (contracting, in fact, in total buying power; see the figure, “Trends in Federal R&D”) even as the number of researchers and the average grant size have grown.The funding drought accelerates a long-term shift from government-supported to industry-supported biology. Historically, the U.S. government spent far more on research than the drug industry did—until about 1988, when pharmaceutical R&D finally outstripped NIH funding for the first time. Industry's lead has grown steadily since then. Indeed, if drug research continues to grow at current rates, and basic research stays flat, the drug industry could well outspend NIH two-to-one by the end of 2008.Science Is About PeopleThe National Institutes of Health director Elias Zerhouni and his senior deputies have appeared in print (12) and at conference sessions with names like “NIH at the Crossroads: How Diminished Funds Will Impact Biomedical Research and What Scientists Can Do About It” (3) and “NIH Grants: Changes in Review and Funding Opportunities” (4). They are increasingly urging scientists to engage in political and funding processes. Yet elsewhere, people I respect have disengaged in despair at science funding and science policy, quitting jobs at funding agencies and inside the White House itself.“Science is,” as Dr. Zerhouni has noted, “about people. And current constraints are putting some categories of scientists at particular risk.”I've talked to scores of those at-risk scientists over the past year, folks who have left, are trying to leave, or are thinking about leaving, the bench in American academia. Some have lost jobs already. Others are exhausted by the grant treadmill's stress and uncertainty. They are eying other opportunities in pharmaceuticals, biofuels, or publishing, or are thinking that the GFP looks greener back home in France or Germany, China or India.No Alternative to EngagementSure, there is some evidence that legislative change in Washington will increase support for US science. But neither Congress nor the Executive will make restoring science funding a priority just because it's a good thing. There are too many other good things jostling for attention. Ever since I can remember, agency heads, association presidents, and journal editorial writers have been urging scientists to make themselves heard on issues central to their own interests.The responses have been, er, muted, and scientists for the most part have maintained their traditional detachment, as though the political process that creates money for science doesn't involve them.But science funding does involve us, our profession, our families, and our livelihoods. And we, in our turn, must be involved in it.