Will Democrats help stem cell research?

by emptypockets

Are Congressional Democrats really going to support stem cell research, or were stem cells simply a political device for the campaign trail?

We have seen that stem cell research is a useful political wedge to separate fundamentalist candidates, beholden to the extreme religious right, from an electorate of mainstream Republican voters (who support stem cell research). Democrats have done a great job stumping on stem cells and using legislation sure to be vetoed as a means to get incumbent Republicans on record voting against the publicly popular research.

But their policy action so far is disappointingly mixed. Democrats have continued to champion federal funding of stem cell research as a legislative matter -- that is, they have passed legislation aimed at reversing Bush's directive to the NIH and thereby freeing up federal money for the research. (A similar bill was also passed by the Republican-controlled House in May 2005 and the Republican-controlled Senate in September 2006.) However, when it comes to appropriating funding that would pay for that research, the current budget bills show a meager allocation for NIH, on par with the 2004-2006 budgets set by Republicans.

That means that even if stem cell research were eligible to receive federal dollars, the money available would be slim. At the same time, the engine of basic research discovery that is required for stem cell research to succeed is being choked off as the major national funding source -- NIH grants -- is held below the level of inflation. Although NIH money can't be used for almost any human stem cell research, the human work can be greatly accelerated by discoveries made in NIH-funded model systems, from mice to worms. While Democrats are at least protecting NIH from the worst of the cuts Bush has requested, they are nowhere near to putting their money where their mouths were when it comes to backing stem cell research. This Congress, run by Democrats, is failing to promote biomedical research more than the last two Congresses, run by Republicans, did.

Science magazine wrote on June 29 (subscription only):

There's not much relief in sight for NIH. An appropriations bill passed by a House panel and a companion measure approved by the Senate spending panel would both give NIH a small raise, reversing the president's proposed $279 million cut. The Senate boost of $1 billion, for example, would provide a 3.5% increase -- only half the amount biomedical research advocates are hoping for. That would bring NIH's total budget to $29.9 billion, $250 million more than the House has approved.

Even the Senate total is less than meets the eye, however. Both the House and Senate measures would add $200 million to the $100 million that NIH now transfers to the Global AIDS Fund, effectively cutting the Senate raise to only 2.8%. Still, even that meager increase would push the bill's total above the limit the White House has indicated would be acceptable.

Inflation in the life sciences this year is estimated at 3.7%; thus, Congress's increase is yet another year of real-dollar budget cuts for NIH. Even worse, the way they're allocating the money, most NIH institutes would see an increase of less than 2.5% under the Senate plan and less than 1.7% under the House plan, increases well below the level of inflation (Facts and figures on NIH budget and inflation from AAAS). Scientists weathered these cuts under two Republican Congresses. It is dismaying to see it continue under the Democrats.

If Democrats want to advance stem cell research, the cold policy truth is that they're better off forgetting about stem cell bills that are bound to be vetoed, and instead using their power to commit to increasing NIH funding at levels slightly above inflation annually over the next 20 years. As I wrote yesterday, the policy mantra in science funding should be slow, steady, and sustainable.

Stem cell boosterism may be a useful political tool to help Democrats get elected. It doesn't go far though if, once in power, they fail to act differently than Republicans, especially by failing to adequately fund the main source of American research grants, the NIH.

Comments

[emptypockets]

I need to add the disclaimer that I'm a scientist and my own research is funded largely by NIH grants, so I'm not approaching this issue impartially...

[Jodi]

emptypockets,

I think that the general tendency is for the Democrats/Liberals to automatically publically oppose what ever Bush has presented, and to support legislation for significantly sized voting niche groups no matter how crazy they are.

I too am affected by Government money though I am not paid directly by the Government.
I don't really expect any difference in funding if the Democrats win everything next year.

We had been a bit worried about a total Bush Administration collapse and inversion with a gridlocked government earlier, but his time is too short now to fret.

There should be a larger budget actually, so there will be more money.

The defense contracts will continue to go through for the Congressional Districts. The agencies will still need a lot more technology. Mining, and oil exploration and extraction will continue. I have even had a hand in some significant medical eqipment though relatively small moneywise.

And the private sector will continue, though a little dampened under the Democrats.

The only real problem is the Iraq War and that for me actually mostly on a personal basis, though it has drained some money from military development. But that will come back big once the war is over.

[Jodi]

14,000 just today at least briefly!!!

[JEP]

I read at Huffpost about a liberal writer suggesting, tongue in cheek, to the members of the National Review cruise, that since Muslims are not Christians, maybe it is OK to use THEIR stem cells for research... and no doubt, the neocons actually thought it worth considering.

[Powerpuff]

When will Democrats realease the investigation of the House Intelligence Committee's role in the Duke Cunningham scandal?

[rhfactor]

Look, it's simple. (evoking Gilly)

We put you in charge. Problem solved.
Next.

[rhfactor]

SITE ADMINS: Is there a feature one can pay for here to FILTER OUT X's COMMENTS ?

If so, I would gladly subscribe. If not, I think there could be some money in it -- as a plug in to most of the blog software platforms.

Now who in the world would I be thinking of...

[emptypockets]

my preference is to keep it an open forum, but there should be a scroll-bar on the right side of your window, for use in emergencies..!

[oldtree]

This is where if anyone gets in the way of the vast majority of the people of these United States and denies us free health care for all, they will be removed. You are complicit in the crimes of murder of American citizens. Vote with us or expect to die without your health care. Because someone guilty of murder has no need for medical care. The people you have murdered by your complacence and taking bribes and payoffs by the industry that wants to make money on the healthy and kill the sick, is also conspiracy to commit murder.
You had best do what you are told and vote for health care for all of us, or you will be removed. period. I personally hope your constituents kill you. It would only be fair, wouldn't it? You have killed what, hundreds or thousands of them?

[Michael]

I was just at a conference of university research administrators in Los Angeles, where the keynote address was given by Judith Gasson of UCLA's cancer center, about some exciting new research using embryonic stem cells. The picture at NIH is indeed bleak, not only because of the funding limitations (about which more in a moment), but also because all of the very few human embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for research use are widely believed to be irreparably contaminated by culture media and other foreign matter, making them useless for therapeutic use in humans.

But the biggest problem with the funding isn't the overall size of the NIH budget or its growth rate with respect to inflation. The problem with the NIH payline right now is that NIH administrators were recklessly negligent during the glory years of the doubling. They made huge out-year commitments that sucked up the majority of their research money, and until those commitments are over and done with, money for new research is going to be tight. The good news is, many of those commitments are now in their final year or two. The bad news is, that's still a couple of years of low funding rates for newer research. But I can't really castigate the Democrats in Congress for not wanting to throw good money after bad. What we need is a cultural change in the administration at NIH, and not necessarily a funding increase.

[emptypockets]

Michael, that's an interesting take & I hadn't heard that before. Can you be a little more specific?

What are the out-year commitments you're talking about?