National Institutes Of Health Budget Research Articles

A Scholarly Dialog on Recent Trends in National Institutes of Health's Funding for the Thyroid Field.

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major funding agency for biomedical research in the United States. To initiate a scholarly dialog about research and career development in the thyroid field, here we reviewed recent trends in NIH funding for this area. We used the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database to estimate the level of NIH extramural support during 2013-2022 (number of active grants/year and $amount/year weighed by the total number of active grants/year and $amount/year), provided by the NIH to the thyroid field. We determined that in 2013, the NIH supported ∼140 grants/year, totaling almost $50 million/year, the majority in the form of R01 grants. Within the thyroid field, support was evenly split between thyroid cancer and thyroid hormone metabolism and action subareas. In the subsequent years (2014-2022), the total number of active grants peaked at 150/year ($55 million) in 2014 but progressively decreased to about 100 active grants/year ($30 million) in 2022. This trend occurred while the NIH budget increased from $29 to $46 billion/year. Globally, the number of thyroid-related publications increased by ∼70% during the study period, and the fractional contribution of several countries remained relatively stable, except for China which increased by ∼600%. Remarkably, the fraction of thyroid-related publications in the United States sponsored by the NIH decreased from 5.5% to 3.1% of the global number. Conclusion: These results constitute a very concerning scenario for research and education in the thyroid field. We appeal to the NIH, the professional societies in endocrinology and thyroidology, and all other relevant stakeholders such as thyroid-related professionals and thyroid patients to engage in further discussions to identify the root causes of this trend and implement an action plan to stabilize and eventually reverse this situation.

'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.

The very low success rates of grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are highly detrimental to the progress of science and the careers of scientists. The peer review process that evaluates proposals has been claimed arbitrarily to be the best there is. This consensus system, however, has never been evaluated scientifically against an alternative. Here we delineate the 15 major problems with the peer review process. We challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other funding agencies throughout the world to refute each of these criticisms. We call for the implementation of more equitable alternatives that will not constrain the progress of science. We propose a system that will fund at least 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with about half the current NIH budget, seven-times as many as the current number of NIH "research project grants," and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive "peer" review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two systems over 5-10 years be compared scientifically.

‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research

The very low success rates of grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are highly detrimental to the progress of science and the careers of scientists. The peer review process that evaluates proposals has been claimed arbitrarily to be the best there is. This consensus system, however, has never been evaluated scientifically against an alternative. Here we delineate the 15 major problems with the peer review process. We challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other funding agencies throughout the world to refute each of these criticisms. We call for the implementation of more equitable alternatives that will not constrain the progress of science. We propose a system that will fund at least 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with about half the current NIH budget, seven-times as many as the current number of NIH “research project grants,” and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive “peer” review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two systems over 5–10 years be compared scientifically.

National Institutes of Health Funding to Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery at U.S. Medical Schools from 2015 to 2021.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of orthopaedic surgery departments has historically lagged behind that of other surgical disciplines. In this study, we present an updated analysis of NIH grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments at U.S. medical schools and an evaluation of the characteristics of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs). The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was queried for grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in the 2015 to 2021 fiscal years. Funding totals were calculated for 4 categories: award mechanism, awarding institute, recipient institute, and PI. Trends in funding from 2015 to 2021 were determined and compared with the annual NIH budget. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments was compared with awards received by other surgical specialties in 2021. The characteristics of NIH-funded PIs and co-PIs were evaluated. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in 2021 was compared with funding in 2014 as reported in a previous study. In 2021, 287 grants were awarded to 187 PIs at 47 orthopaedic surgery departments for a total of $104,710,841, representing 0.4% of the overall NIH budget. The top 5 departments earned $41,750,321 (39.9%) of the total NIH funding for orthopaedic surgery. From 2015 to 2021, total funding increased by 79.7% (p < 0.001), but the rate of increase was not significantly different from that of the overall annual NIH budget (p = 0.469). In 2021, grants were most commonly awarded via the R01 mechanism (70.0% of total funding), with a median annual award of $397,144 (interquartile range [IQR], $335,017 to $491,248). The majority of grants (70.0%) supported basic science research, followed by translational (12.2%), clinical (9.4%), and educational (8.4%) research. NIH funding did not vary by the gender of the PI (p = 0.505), and the proportion of female PIs was significantly greater in 2021 than in 2014 (33.9% versus 20.5%, p = 0.009). Compared with other surgical departments, orthopaedic surgery departments ranked second-lowest in terms of the total NIH funding received in 2021. NIH funding to orthopaedic surgery departments continues to be limited and lags behind that of other surgical subspecialties, which may create challenges in addressing the rising burden of musculoskeletal disease in the U.S. These findings highlight the importance of efforts to identify barriers to grant procurement in orthopaedic surgery.

Asians Are Not Interchangeable.

To the Editor: As we celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (at the time of writing), we are compelled to address Liu and colleagues’ article by calling on medical schools across the nation to recognize the realities we face. 1 As 2 Asians in the United States, we repudiate the notion of an ethnic monolith deserving of hate by raising awareness of our distinct heritages and challenging the myth of the model minority, which assumes that all Asian American Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) are able to achieve high levels of success, because of their well-educated and hardworking nature. We are 2 AAPI physicians-in-training with unique backgrounds and experiences: Filipino-American and Hong Konger, Asian American and Asian Immigrant, native and non-native English speaker, united by this dialogue. We invite medical schools to join in this dialogue on anti-Asian hate, social invisibility, and the model minority myth by addressing the following 3 areas. First, we urge all medical schools to provide opportunities and scholarships for AAPI-related public health research. AAPI-health research is critically underfunded, comprising only 0.17% of the National Institutes of Health budget between 1992 and 2018. 1 This is exemplified by the shockingly low amount of clinical research dedicated to studying cancer in AAPIs. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, only 5 out of over 10,000 registered trials in January 2013 focused on cancer in AAPIs. 2 If research on the diseases that disproportionately affect AAPI individuals, such as liver and stomach cancers, remain underfunded, the research gap will only widen health disparities between AAPIs and the general U.S. population. Second, we ask medical schools to dismantle the barriers to success that AAPI individuals face by introducing inclusion efforts, mentorship, and career counseling. The “bamboo ceiling,” long-standing barriers in AAPI career advancement due to institutional racism, is especially salient in medicine. Compared with other ethnic groups, Asians experience a large disparity between the percentage of department chairs relative to the number of full-time faculty. 3 Third, we urge medical schools to overcome implicit bias and discrimination by integrating dialogue on the effects of anti-Asian hate within antiracism curriculum. Despite the success of AAPIs in medicine, we must not overlook the tragic history of anti-Asian sentiment in the United States, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, to the WWII Japanese internment camps, to the anti-Asian hate crimes that have risen in recent years. 1 These moments have had a profound impact on AAPIs, with race events since the COVID-19 pandemic as a particular concern for AAPI well-being and safety. As the fastest growing ethnicity group in the United States, 4 we urge all medical schools to proactively develop policies that demonstrate equity, justice, dignity, and respect toward the AAPI community.

Trends in NIH Funding to Medical Schools in 2011 and 2020.

To examine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to U.S. medical schools and their academic departments and the amount of awards provided by each of the NIH institutes. All data on NIH awards to U.S. medical schools from 2000 to 2020 are publicly available and were obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. These data include the value and number of awards to each medical school, medical school department, medical school location, principal investigator, and the NIH awarding institute. Trends in the inflation-adjusted awards from 2011 to 2020 were calculated and a comparison of the awards made in 2011 and 2020 was performed. The total NIH budget increased by 16.1% from 2011 to 2020. The allocation of NIH funds to medical schools increased 26.3% ($13.7 billion to $17.3 billion) during this interval. In 2020, 29.3% of all medical school NIH funds were allocated to departments of internal medicine/medicine. Psychiatry was the second ranking department, which was followed, in order, by pediatrics, neurology, and microbiology/immunology/virology. The National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute were the top medical school funding institutes in 2011 and 2020. Medical schools as a group continue to receive the greatest percentage of NIH funding. Funding to clinical science departments increased by a larger percentage than that to basic science departments (35.3% vs 10.9%, respectively) over the 2011-2020 interval. Funding for clinical science departments is increasing at a faster rate than that of basic science departments. However, that so much investigation in basic science and clinical science departments is performed by personnel with a PhD degree indicates the goals and methods of the basic and clinical sciences may not be so different.

Current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons in the United States: Beacon of hope or candle in the wind?

ObjectiveIncreasing forces threaten the viability of thoracic surgeon–initiated research, a core component of our academic mission. National Institutes of Health funding is a benchmark of research productivity and innovation. This study examined the current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons. MethodsThoracic surgeon principal investigators on National Institutes of Health–funded grants during June 2010, June 2015, and June 2020 were identified using National Institutes of Health iSearchGrants (version 2.4). American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to identify all surgeons in the United States. Types and total costs of National Institutes of Health–funded grants were compared relative to other surgical specialties. ResultsA total of 61 of 4681 (1.3%), 63 of 4484 (1.4%), and 60 of 4497 (1.3%) thoracic surgeons were principal investigators on 79, 76, and 87 National Institutes of Health–funded grants in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively; these rates were higher than those for most other surgical specialties (P ≤ .0001). Total National Institutes of Health costs for Thoracic Surgeon–initiated grants increased 57% from 2010 to 2020, outpacing the 33% increase in total National Institutes of Health budget. Numbers and types of grants varied among cardiovascular, transplant, and oncology subgroups. Although the majority of grants and costs were cardiovascular related, increased National Institutes of Health expenditures primarily were due to funding for transplant and oncology grants. Per-capita costs were highest for transplant-related grants during both years. Percentages of R01-to-total costs were constant at 55%. Rates and levels of funding for female versus male thoracic surgeons were comparable. Awards to 5 surgeons accounted for 33% of National Institutes of Health costs for thoracic surgeon principal investigators in 2020; a similar phenomenon was observed for 2010 and 2015. ConclusionsLong-term structural changes must be implemented to more effectively nurture the next generation of thoracic surgeon scientists.

‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: An alternative to funding biomedical research

The very low success rates of grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are highly detrimental to the progress of science and the careers of scientists. The peer review process that evaluates proposals has been claimed arbitrarily to be the best there is. This consensus system, however, has never been evaluated scientifically against an alternative. Here we delineate the 15 major problems with the peer review process, and challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, and the U.S. Academy of Sciences to refute each of these criticisms. We call for the implementation of more equitable alternatives that will not constrain the progress of science. We propose a system that will fund 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with just half the current NIH budget, three-fold more than the current number of grants, and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive peer review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two methods over 5–10 years be compared scientifically.

Environmental considerations in the selection of medical staplers: A comparative life cycle assessment

It is estimated that the health care industry produces 8% of the total United States’ carbon dioxide emissions. This is in line global with other OECD countries, where the health care industries comprise between 3% and 8% of national carbon dioxide emissions. However, only 0.03% of the $29 billion US National Institutes of Health budget is granted to research focused on increasing sustainability in the healthcare industry. Due to the positive feedback system of the environmental impacts due to healthcare creating more challenges that affect human health, such as global warming the environmental impacts of medicine must be considered more holistically. One area that requires significant attention is the use of disposable medical supplies and their implications for sustainability. Disposable medical materials were first introduced for the purpose of infection control, convenience, and cost-savings. However, tradeoffs exist with respect to the indirect costs to society from the environmental impacts that are produced from the use of disposable materials. This study utilized life cycle assessment (LCA) to analyze two single use staplers at different price points. These staplers are primarily comprised of metal and plastic components. The more expensive and complex stapler was found to have a greater environmental impact across all of the impact categories analyzed when compared to the less costly and complex single use stapler due to having a greater mass. Dematerializing the single use staplers has the potential to reduce the environmental impacts, however, a durability and use tradeoff must be considered.

Impact of Orthopaedic Surgeons on National Institutes of Health Funding for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Research.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains one of the predominant sources of biomedical research funding in the United States, yet its impact on total hip and knee arthroplasty research is poorly understood. This study defines the portfolio of NIH funding for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and the impact of orthopaedic surgeons on this portfolio. The Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was queried for NIH grants that had been awarded for total hip and knee arthroplasty and total NIH funding from 2010 to 2020. Compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) were calculated. Funding totals were compared with those from 20 other clinical areas. The principal investigators (PIs) and grants were characterized, and comparisons were made with use of the Student t test. A total of 489 grants were awarded, totaling $181 million (CAGR of 10.3%). This was >3 times the growth rate for the total NIH budget (CAGR of 2.9%), which increased from $31.2 to $41.7 billion over the 11-year period. When compared with 20 other clinical areas, TJA received the least amount of NIH funding over that period. Alzheimer disease received the most funding ($12.1 billion, CAGR of 19.5%), and cerebral palsy received the penultimate amount of funding ($284 million, CAGR of 6.3%). The R01 grant mechanism was the predominant source (63.1%), and the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) received the most funding (9.7%). Departments of orthopaedic surgery were awarded the most funding (23.5%), yet only 20 orthopaedic surgeons were identified as PIs (16.0%). There were no significant differences in NIH funding totals by PI demographic and academic characteristics (p > 0.05), yet orthopaedic surgeons had among the highest Hirsch indices (h-indices) (p < 0.001). Funding supported clinical (63.5%), translational (19.3%), basic science (7.1%), and other types (10.1%) of research. The top areas with funding were postoperative complications (44.4%), postoperative pain management (17.6%), rehabilitation (15.1%), and implant design (12.4%). There is a paucity of orthopaedic surgeon representation among NIH grants awarded for TJA. Opportunities may exist for orthopaedic surgeons to collaborate in identified areas of clinical interest. Additional research is needed to understand the obstacles to obtaining NIH grant funding for orthopaedic surgeon PIs. Increasing the levels of funding from the NIH is a strategic priority for departments of orthopaedic surgery. Understanding levels of funding for clinical areas in total joint arthroplasty is critical to foster research and discovery support from the NIH.

Burden and Cost of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2021

Gastrointestinal diseases account for considerable health care use and expenditures. We estimated the annual burden, costs, and research funding associated with gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States. We generated estimates using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; Nationwide Emergency Department Sample; National Inpatient Sample; Kids' Inpatient Database; Nationwide Readmissions Database; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; National Vital Statistics System; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research; MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data; MarketScan Medicare Supplemental data; United Network for Organ Sharing registry; Medical Expenditure Panel Survey; and National Institutes of Health (NIH). Gastrointestinal health care expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually, there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for gastrointestinal symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with a primary gastrointestinal diagnosis. Hospitalizations for a principal gastrointestinal diagnosis accounted for more than 3.8 million admissions, with 403,699 readmissions. A total of 22.2 million gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed, and 284,844 new gastrointestinal cancers were diagnosed. Gastrointestinal diseases and cancers caused 255,407 deaths. The NIH supported $3.1 billion (7.5% of the NIH budget) for gastrointestinal research in2020. Gastrointestinal diseases are responsible for millions of health care encounters and hundreds of thousands of deaths that annually costs billions of dollars in the United States. To reduce the high burden of gastrointestinal diseases, focused clinical and public health efforts, supported by additional research funding, are warranted.

Model organism databases are in jeopardy.

Model organism databases are in jeopardy.

Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding

Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998-2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.

Why Write?

Why Write?

Coauthor Country Affiliations in International Collaborative Research Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 2009 to 2017

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world. International collaborative research-a subset of NIH's portfolio-is critical to furthering the agency's health research mission. To quantify the extent of the NIH's international collaborations and the relative importance of this research through the lens of publications. This cross-sectional study used bibliometric data from the Web of Science database to analyze trends in the growth of NIH-funded publications from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017, and examined their importance using national affiliations of all coauthors listed, h indices, and citation impact scores. All countries with coauthor affiliations in NIH-funded publications during the study period were included. Data were analyzed from October 22 through November 16, 2018. Country affiliations of coauthors' institutions in NIH-funded publications indexed in the Web of Science database from 2009 to 2017. Trends in the number of NIH-supported publications with non-US coauthors during a 9-year period and their relative importance assessed by h index per country and category-normalized citation impact (CNCI) for groups of country affiliations in 2017. From 2009 to 2017, the annual count of NIH-funded publications increased 46.2% from 67 041 to 98 002. This increase was driven in part by an increase in publications with a non-US author alone or as a collaborator with a US author compared with those exclusively with US authors, reflected by an increase in the percentage of publications with non-US coauthors from 28.3% to 34.8%. Moreover, in 2017, publications coauthored by US-affiliated and non-US-affiliated investigators had a higher mean CNCI (1.99) than those whose authors were only US affiliated (1.54) or non-US affiliated (1.35). China became the most frequent publishing partner, with 6982 coauthored publications and the greatest increase over time among non-US countries. In a 9-year period when the NIH budget remained relatively unchanged, an increase in the number of publications occurred with a growing trend toward more international collaborations of authorship; these publications also had a higher CNCI than publications with only US or only non-US authors. The findings suggest that international collaboration is a vital and growing component of the NIH's research output and likely reflects increased globalization of biomedical research.

Trends in Clinical Research Including Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Participants Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 1992 to 2018

Advancing the health equity agenda for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA/NHPI) individuals has become an intersecting priority for federal agencies. However, the impact of federal investments and legislation to ensure systematic processes and resources to eliminate health disparities in AA/NHPI populations is unclear. To perform a portfolio review of clinical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for AA/NHPI populations and determine the level of NIH investment in serving these populations. Cross-sectional study in which the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results system was queried for extramural AA/NHPI-focused clinical research projects conducted in the United States from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2018. Clinical research funded under research project grants, centers, cooperative awards, research career awards, training grants, and fellowships was included, with an advanced text search for AA/NHPI countries and cultures of origin. Project titles and terms were screened for inclusion and project abstracts were reviewed to verify eligibility. Descriptive analyses were completed. Outcomes included NIH funding trends and characteristics of funded projects and organizations. The proportions of AA/NHPI-related funding trends were calculated using 2 denominators, total NIH expenditures and clinical research expenditures. There were 5460 records identified, of which 891 studies were reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 529 clinical research studies focused on AA/NHPI participants composed 0.17% of the total NIH budget over 26 years. Projects studying AA/NHPI individuals in addition to other populations were funded across 17 NIH institutes and centers. The top 5 funders collectively contributed almost 60% of the total funding dollars for AA/NHPI projects and were the National Cancer Institute ($231 584 664), National Institute on Aging ($108 365 124), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ($67 232 910), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($62 982 901), and National Institute on Mental Health ($60 072 779). Funding of these projects ($775 536 121) made up 0.17% of the overall NIH expenditures ($451 284 075 000) between 1992 and 2018, and 0.18% ($677 479 468) of the NIH research budget after 2000. Funding for AA/NHPI projects significantly increased over time, but the proportion of the total NIH budget has only increased from 0.12% before 2000 to 0.18% after 2000. Of total funding, 60.8% was awarded to research project grants compared with only 5.1% allocated to research career awards, training grants, and fellowships. Increases in research dollars for AA/NHPI clinical research were not associated with increases in the overall NIH research budget, and underrepresentation of AA/NHPI subgroups still remains. Without overt direction from federal entities and dedicated funds for health disparities research, as well as parallel efforts to increase diversity in the biomedical workforce, investments may continue to languish for AA/NHPI populations.

The Impact of Individual Mentored Career Development (K) Awards on the Research Trajectories of Early-Career Scientists.

This analysis examined the role of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) individual Mentored Career Development Award (K01, K08, K23) on launching and sustaining independent research careers for early-career scientists, and investigated the effects of these awards during and after the doubling of the NIH budget. The authors used grants data from the NIH covering the period 1990 through 2016, and compared success in receipt of R01 equivalent awards (R01 Eq.) and Research Project Grants (RPGs) for K awardees and K applicants who did not receive funding. The analysis combined regression discontinuity design with coarsened exact matching, and regression. Overall, receipt of K award was associated with a 24.1% increase in likelihood of first independent NIH award (P < .01), and a larger number of R01 Eq. and RPG awards. After accounting for first major independent awards, K awards were uncorrelated with receiving second major independent research awards. Comparing different funding periods, K01 awards were predictive of subsequent R01 Eq. and RPG awards after but not during the NIH doubling, K08 awards were predictive only during the NIH doubling, and K23 awards were predictive during both periods. Receipt of Mentored Career Development Awards was linked to increased likelihood that early-career scientists successfully transitioned to an independent research career. These findings indicate that extending funding to additional K award applicants with meritorious scores could significantly strengthen the pipeline of biomedical researchers. In addition, enhancing K awards may be relevant to sustaining research careers for clinician scientists.

Fifty Years of Supporting Global Health Research at the NIH Fogarty International Center.

For 50 years, the Fogarty International Center (FIC) has built research capacity particularly in low and middle-income countries responding to national and global public health priorities. Established in 1968 in honor of U.S. Congressman John E. Fogarty, FIC is one of 27 Institutes and Centers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Initially created in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and emerging infectious diseases in the 1990s, the Center provided training for approximately 6,000 health scientists from more than 100 countries including 1,000 from the U.S. Current programs are catalytic, addressing national and international institutional capacity strengthening in HIV and other infectious diseases, environmental and occupational health, research ethics, brain disorders, trauma and injury and other non-communicable diseases, tobacco, health systems implementation research, and medical education. Since 1988, FIC provided over $1.5 billion in extramural grants leveraging its relatively modest $50 million extramural budget by $20–$30 million annually. FIC-trained scientists and public health leaders led key studies about malaria vaccines and AIDS prevention trials, became directors of national HIV/AIDS programs, and achieved leadership positions such as Minister of Health. Between 2009 and 2015, FIC cited-papers averaged approximately 1.1% of the NIH total, in comparison to the FIC budget, which averaged only 0.22% of the NIH budget. While maintaining strong commitments to respond to global health threats caused by communicable diseases, FIC is training the next generation of global health researchers focusing on chronic diseases, implementation science and epidemic modeling needed to predict and help contain future global pandemics.

Congress Funds Key Mental Health, Substance Use Programs in Budget

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessCongress Funds Key Mental Health, Substance Use Programs in BudgetLinda M. RichmondLinda M. RichmondSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.4b24AbstractThe Fiscal 2018 budget boosts funding for pressing mental health and substance use issues.APA praised Congress last month for passing the $1.3 trillion omnibus package that boosts funding for combating the opioid epidemic and for other pressing mental health issues facing the nation. While the military was the big winner in the budget and will receive a $60 billion boost over the 2017 budget, mental health and substance use items also received significant increases, as follows:Opioids: $3.6 billion ($2.55 billion increase from Fiscal 2017) for improving treatment and prevention efforts, finding alternative pain medications, and addressing workforce needs and behavioral health. The budget includes $1 billion for the State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grants, which awards grants to states to boost opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery activities. The funding will include a 15 percent set-aside for states with the highest opioid-related fatalities. A White House report issued last November said the opioid epidemic cost the U.S. economy more than $500 billion in 2015.Mental health: $1.5 billion ($306 million increase from Fiscal 2017) for mental health programs at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Within this total, the bill provides $723 million for the Mental Health Block Grant, $100 million for new grants to Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers, and $25 million for mental health programs to address school safety. National Institutes of Health (NIH): $37.1 billion ($3 billion increase from Fiscal 2017), including $500 million for a new initiative on opioid addiction research, development of opioid alternatives, pain management, and addiction treatment. This NIH budget boost will benefit research at its three mental health–related institutes—the National Institute of Mental Health ($110 million increase from Fiscal 2017); National Institute on Drug Abuse ($293 million increase from Fiscal 2017); and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ($26 million from Fiscal 2017).While the omnibus provides funding for a host of pressing mental health needs, it did not include funding to stabilize the health insurance markets in the Affordable Care Act, which APA supports.“While the funding package is not perfect, it provides a significant and meaningful boost to mental health and substance use treatment and research in this country,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “Our members continue to pledge to work with our partners in Congress and the federal government to ensure that these funded efforts are implemented.” ■The SAMHSA budget overview can be accessed here. The NIH budget overview is available here. ISSUES NewArchived

NIH behavioral and social sciences research support: 1980-2016.

The history of behavioral and social science research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between 1980 and 2016 is reviewed. Noncommunicable diseases are now the primary cause of death worldwide and most are strongly linked to behavior. Developed under the prevailing zeitgeist of the biomedical model, behavioral and social science has often been underfunded at NIH. In 1990, the Senate Appropriations Committee, recognizing that behavior may contribute to about half of all premature deaths, recommended that funding for behavioral and social sciences research should be about 10% of the NIH budget. NIH and American Psychological Association efforts to address this goal are described. Data from several sources suggest that this goal has never been realized. Patterns of federal funding for research may have a significant influence on scientific disciplines. Fields of study that have received more extramural funding are associated with greater growth in faculty and higher faculty salaries. A renewed effort to increase the federal investment in behavioral and social sciences research is necessary. (PsycINFO Database Record