Why the U.S. Budget Sequester Is a Disaster for the Future of Biomedical Science

Abstract

As the United States enters its fifth month of the acrossthe-board spending cuts of federal budget sequestration, most residents have probably forgotten about it. The topic is no longer headline news, and because life has gone on, many people believe that we have adjusted. Nothing could be farther from the truth for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An NIH-supported research program is a multiyear process that begins with the submission, peer review, and approval of a proposal to perform a body of research over a period of time, usually 3 to 5 years. A principal investigator (PI), the leader of the research program, assembles and leads a team of scientists on experimental projects that may take years to run from start to finish. The grant itself pays the salaries of highly trained professional technicians; some have been working on the same or related projects for years and have developed unique and irreplaceable skill sets. Research grants also support the best and the brightest graduate students and fellows who represent the next generation of scientists. Finally, grant monies pay for supplies, equipment, and reagents, the hardware of science used in laboratory experimentation. So, where and how are research scientists to cut expenses? At academic institutions, a PI cannot always impose a salary cut or furlough personnel, because this violates the rules of the college or university. Often, a disproportionate cut is made to the experiments themselves, effectively curtailing progress on research. Multiply such budgetary adjustments by the number of NIHsupported grants in the United States, and it becomes possible to predict the loss of forward momentum of scientific discovery. Let me now turn to the unintended consequences of the uncertainty and unpredictability that have been engendered by the budget sequester, together with the unanticipated tripling or quadrupling of administrative work for PIs and university officials. Scientists are struggling to manage the operations of their laboratories in a void of solid information about upcoming grant budgets. By way of background, federal grants are funded by annual allocations that, under normal circumstances, arrive at a predictable time each year with an expected budget amount based on the original grant award. Due to sequestration, the receipt of annual funds has been delayed, often for months. This causes PIs and their administrators to create temporary budgets and to do their best to juggle monies to make the payroll while waiting for awards to arrive. Without knowing any specifics about the exact dollar amount of the cuts, PIs are constantly adjusting and readjusting budgets, typically involving a series of handoffs from the PI to an administrative assistant, next to a university accountant, and finally to an institutional official. As the NIH agencies struggle to backfill some of the cut revenues, many investigators, while grateful to receive additional monies, will go through the process yet again. Individuals, departments, and universities are reeling from the increased workload, with a massive loss of time that ought to be dedicated to the progress of scientific research instead going into bureaucratic money management. Entire research laboratories are spinning their wheels, waiting for awards to arrive or to be processed by overworked personnel. A 5%–10% across-the-board cut will be so much greater than the amount of money that is being “saved” by ill-conceived efforts to cut the U.S. debt. What a waste of time, money, effort, and brainpower. The budget sequester is not a 1-year event. It will remain in effect until Congress acts to change current laws,