Sequestration Could Slow the Pace of Biomedical Research

By Edward J. Benz, Jr., MD

The automatic budget cuts (or sequestration) that went into to effect as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, could have a chilling long-term effect on scientific research in the United States.

The automatic cuts will slash 5.1 percent – or about $1.6 billion in 2013 alone – from the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the principal funder of biomedical research in the United States, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is a major supporter of research at Dana-Farber.

Dana-Farber President and CEO, Edward J. Benz, Jr., MDThe immediate effect for Dana-Farber is uncertain. In the short term, Dana-Farber can weather the potential reductions in federal research funding under the 2013 budget cuts, but in the long run, some scientists may struggle to keep their laboratories running amid uncertain prospects for federal grants. Funds that might otherwise be available for exciting new “out-of-the-box” research will be needed instead for sustaining our basic research needs.

With more than 1.6 million Americans expected to receive a cancer diagnosis in 2013 and more than 570,000 who will succumb to this devastating disease, cancer research and biomedical science must remain a strong national priority.

If we continue to undercut our national investment in medical research, we not only will deny hope to millions of patients and their families, but we also will jeopardize our standing as a world leader in medical research, weakening our ability to compete in the global innovation-based economy of the 21st Century.

Francis Collins, the NIH director, has said he fears the cuts could cause the nation “to lose a generation of young scientists.” Freezes and small increases over the past decade have already lowered the chance of research grants being funded to about 1 in 6, he was quoted as saying. “The sequestration cuts will lower those chances even more —  a lot of good science just won’t be done.”

If we are to address the health challenges of an aging and increasingly diverse population, and remain a vibrant force in the global economy, America needs more investment in medical research and the health care workforce, not less.

Edward J. Benz, Jr., MD is president and chief executive officer of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and also serves as chief executive officer of Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, director of Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, and as a trustee of Dana-Farber/Children’s Hospital Cancer Care. Dr. Benz is presently the Richard and Susan Smith Professor of Medicine, professor of Pediatrics, professor of Pathology, and faculty dean for Oncology at Harvard Medical School. 

1 thought on “Sequestration Could Slow the Pace of Biomedical Research”

  1. Dear Dr. Benz, I agree that the sequester maybe having a negative impact on medical funding but unless the govt stops spending the $1 tril not covered by taxes we are all going towards a fiscal crisis that will make this look like pennies. So if I were a powerful voice such as yourself I would ask Congress to focus on eliminating the $billions wasted on duplicate programs across the board which would more then make-up for a 5% cut in NIH budget. Not to mention the Medicare- caid and other entitlement fraud. If Comgress actually felt a moral responsibilty to look out for the best interests of our country they could easy add a 50% increase to NIH funding without doing damage to other budget items. But they don’t. More leaders such as yourself need to get these Bozo’s to understand that they need to cut the waste and help significantly grow the economy or there will be no NIH. I do agree that with the NIH budget = to about 1/10th of 1 % of budget there is no reason to cut this – it does’t deal with the real problem. I will continue doing my part to fight cancer and hope Congress comes to realize how much they are destroying our country and future with their selfish actions.

Comments are closed.