Federal Agency biodefense funding, FY2011-FY2012

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series have analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through proposed funding for FY2011. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2012, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. This article also includes an updated assessment of the proportion of biodefense funding provided for programs that address multiple scientific, public health, healthcare, national security, and international security issues in addition to biodefense. The FY2012 federal budget for civilian biodefense totals $6.42 billion. Of that total, $5.78 billion (90%) is budgeted for programs that have both biodefense and nonbiodefense goals and applications, and $637.6 million (10%) is budgeted for programs that have objectives solely related to biodefense.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005

Over the past several years, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. This article analyzes the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State. In total, approximately $14.5 billion has been funded for civilian biodefense through FY2004, with an additional $7.6 billion in the President's budget request for FY2005.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2008-FY2009

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2008. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2009, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Defense, Agriculture, and State and the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation.     

Billions for biodefense: Federal Agency biodefense funding, FY2006-FY2007

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2006. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2007, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the National Science Foundation.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense budgeting, FY2005-FY2006

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. An earlier article analyzed the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2006, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2007-FY2008

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2008, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the National Science Foundation.     

E3LSI research: an essential element of biodefense

The threat of bioterrorism has prompted the U.S. to undertake a vast biodefense initiative, including funding biodefense-related scientific research at unprecedented levels. Unfortunately, the many ethical, economic, environmental, legal, and social implications (E(3)LSI) of biodefense research and activities are not yet receiving the attention they warrant. Previously, in laudable demonstrations of foresight and responsibility, the federal government has funded research into the E(3)LSI of other recent scientific endeavors--namely, the Human Genome Project and the nanotechnology research program--through directed appropriations from their respective research budgets. This article advocates and proposes a model for a portion of biodefense funding to be similarly set aside for an E(3)LSI research program to complement biodefense research, to ensure that bioterror preparedness does not give rise to harmful or otherwise undesirable unintended consequences.     

Health research funding: Members' of Parliament knowledge of and attitudes toward health research and funding

Background

Establishment of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 2000 resulted in increased funding for health research in Canada. Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to CIHR that, following peer review, are judged to be of scientific merit to warrant funding, has grown by 77%. But many of these proposals do not receive funding because of budget constraints. Given the role of Members of Parliament in setting government funding priorities, we surveyed Members of Parliament about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.

Methods

All Members of Parliament were invited to participate, or to designate a senior aide to participate, in a 15-minute survey of knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR. Interviews were conducted between July 15, 2006, and Dec. 20, 2006. Responses were analyzed by party affiliation, region and years of service as a Member of Parliament.

Results

A total of 101 of 308 Members of Parliament or their designated senior aides participated in the survey. Almost one-third of respondents were senior aides. Most of the respondents (84%) were aware of CIHR, but 32% knew nothing about its role. Participants believed that health research is a critical component of a strong health care system and that it is underfunded. Overall, 78% felt that the percentage of total government spending directed to health research funding was too low; 85% felt the same way about the percentage of government health care spending directed to health research. Fifty-four percent believed that the federal government should provide both funding and guidelines for health research, and 66% believed that the business sector should be the primary source of health research funding. Participants (57%) most frequently defined health research as study into cures or treatments of disease, and 22% of participants were aware that CIHR is the main federal government funding organization for health research. Participants perceived health research to be a low priority for Canadian voters (mean ranking 3.8/10, with 1 being unimportant and 10 being extremely important [SD 1.85]).

Interpretation

Our results highlight significant knowledge gaps among Members of Parliament regarding health research. Many of these knowledge gaps will need to be addressed if health research is to become a priority.Over the past 8 years, health research has been an important but declining priority for the federal government. The development of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada, the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the Canadian Health Services Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)¹ reflects this initial interest. Although most of these programs receive multi-year funding, CIHR receives annual funding from the federal government. However, its annual increases have not risen proportionately with the number of requests for funding it receives each year.CIHR is the federal funding body for health research and consists of 13 institutes. It supports 4 pillars of research: biomedical research, clinical research, social and cultural aspects of health and population health research, and health services and systems research. With the formation of CIHR,² federal funding for health research increased from $289 million in 2000 to $553 million in 2002, with subsequent 5%–6% annual increases until 2006. That year, the increase was 2.4%.³ The initial increases in funding stimulated a sharp rise in the number of grants submitted and funded annually. In the 2006 competition, the increase in funding was lower than expected and the success rate in the open competition fell to 16% from the mean rate of 31.7% in previous years. As a result, 60% of peer-reviewed grants rated as very good or excellent were not funded, as compared with 38% in 2001 (CIHR: unpublished data,2007).Because Members of Parliament vote annually to determine CIHR''s budget for funding health research, we surveyed Members of Parliament and their senior aides about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.     

Estimating the Impact of State Budget Cuts and Redirection of Prevention Resources on the HIV Epidemic in 59 California Local Health Departments

Background

In the wake of a national economic downturn, the state of California, in 2009–2010, implemented budget cuts that eliminated state funding of HIV prevention and testing. To mitigate the effect of these cuts remaining federal funds were redirected. This analysis estimates the impact of these budget cuts and reallocation of resources on HIV transmission and associated HIV treatment costs.

Methods and Findings

We estimated the effect of the budget cuts and reallocation for California county health departments (excluding Los Angeles and San Francisco) on the number of individuals living with or at-risk for HIV who received HIV prevention services. We used a Bernoulli model to estimate the number of new infections that would occur each year as a result of the changes, and assigned lifetime treatment costs to those new infections. We explored the effect of redirecting federal funds to more cost-effective programs, as well as the potential effect of allocating funds proportionately by transmission category. We estimated that cutting HIV prevention resulted in 55 new infections that were associated with $20 million in lifetime treatment costs. The redirection of federal funds to more cost-effective programs averted 15 HIV infections. If HIV prevention funding were allocated proportionately to transmission categories, we estimated that HIV infections could be reduced below the number that occurred annually before the state budget cuts.

Conclusions

Reducing funding for HIV prevention may result in short-term savings at the expense of additional HIV infections and increased HIV treatment costs. Existing HIV prevention funds would likely have a greater impact on the epidemic if they were allocated to the more cost-effective programs and the populations most likely to acquire and transmit the infection.     

Assessing a decade of public health preparedness: progress on the precipice?

September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks marked the beginning of significant investment by the federal government to develop a national public health emergency response capability. Recognizing the importance of the public health sector's contribution to the burgeoning homeland security enterprise, this investment was intended to convey a "dual benefit" by strengthening the overall public health infrastructure while building preparedness capabilities. In many instances, federal funds were used successfully for preparedness activities. For example, electronic health information networks, a Strategic National Stockpile, and increased interagency cooperation have all contributed to creating a more robust and prepared enterprise. Additionally, the knowledge of rarely seen or forgotten pathogens has been regenerated through newly established public health learning consortia, which, too, have strengthened relationships between the practice and academic communities. Balancing traditional public health roles with new preparedness responsibilities heightened public health's visibility, but it also presented significant complexities, including expanded lines of reporting and unremitting inflows of new guidance documents. Currently, a rapidly diminishing public health infrastructure at the state and local levels as a result of federal budget cuts and a poor economy serve as significant barriers to sustaining these nascent federal public health preparedness efforts. Sustaining these improvements will require enhanced coordination, collaboration, and planning across the homeland security enterprise; an infusion of innovation and leadership; and sustained transformative investment for governmental public health.     

Biological threat characterization research: a critical component of national biodefense

Biological warfare (BW) threat assessments identify and prioritize BW threats to civilian and military populations. In an ideal world, they provide policymakers with clear and compelling guidance to prioritize biodefense research, development, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of countermeasures. Unfortunately, the biodefense community does not exist in an ideal world. National security professionals responsible for crafting BW threat assessments often are challenged by factors that limit the clarity and/or timeliness of those assessments. Moreover, the potential for life science advances to enhance threats enabled by state programs and the possibility that non-state actors may pursue crude but effective BW methodologies will drastically expand the scope of the perceived threat. Appropriate investment of federal biodefense funds will require some mechanism for validating and prioritizing present and future threats. Ideally, such a mechanism will incorporate empirical data targeted to elucidate actual hazards. In this regard, the Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Biological Threat Characterization Program for the technical validation of threat agents will be a valuable addition to the nation's overall biodefense strategy. This article articulates the need for a coordinated national biological threat characterization program, discusses some of the principal challenges associated with such research, and suggests a few options for their resolution.     

Costs of Eliminating Malaria and the Impact of the Global Fund in 34 Countries

Background

International financing for malaria increased more than 18-fold between 2000 and 2011; the largest source came from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). Countries have made substantial progress, but achieving elimination requires sustained finances to interrupt transmission and prevent reintroduction. Since 2011, global financing for malaria has declined, fueling concerns that further progress will be impeded, especially for current malaria-eliminating countries that may face resurgent malaria if programs are disrupted.

Objectives

This study aims to 1) assess past total and Global Fund funding to the 34 current malaria-eliminating countries, and 2) estimate their future funding needs to achieve malaria elimination and prevent reintroduction through 2030.

Methods

Historical funding is assessed against trends in country-level malaria annual parasite incidences (APIs) and income per capita. Following Kizewski et al. (2007), program costs to eliminate malaria and prevent reintroduction through 2030 are estimated using a deterministic model. The cost parameters are tailored to a package of interventions aimed at malaria elimination and prevention of reintroduction.

Results

The majority of Global Fund-supported countries experiencing increases in total funding from 2005 to 2010 coincided with reductions in malaria APIs and also overall GNI per capita average annual growth. The total amount of projected funding needed for the current malaria-eliminating countries to achieve elimination and prevent reintroduction through 2030 is approximately US$8.5 billion, or about $1.84 per person at risk per year (PPY) (ranging from $2.51 PPY in 2014 to $1.43 PPY in 2030).

Conclusions

Although external donor funding, particularly from the Global Fund, has been key for many malaria-eliminating countries, sustained and sufficient financing is critical for furthering global malaria elimination. Projected cost estimates for elimination provide policymakers with an indication of the level of financial resources that should be mobilized to achieve malaria elimination goals.     

Facing the credit crunch. Politics sends mixed messages for science in the wake of the global financial crisis

The global response to the credit crunch has varied from belt tightening to spending sprees. Philip Hunter investigates how various countries react to the financial crisis in terms of supporting scientific research.The overall state of biomedical research in the wake of the global financial crisis remains unclear amid growing concern that competition for science funding is compromising the pursuit of research. Such concerns pre-date the credit crunch, but there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies demanding value for money. Another problem is balancing funding between different fields; while the biomedical sciences have generally fared well, they are increasingly dependent on basic research in physics and chemistry that are in greater jeopardy. This has led to calls for rebalancing funding, in order to ensure the long-term viability of all fields in an increasingly multidisciplinary and collaborative research world.For countries that are cutting funding—such as Spain, Italy and the UK—the immediate priority is to preserve the fundamental research base and avoid a significant drain of expertise, either to rival countries or away from science altogether. This has highlighted the plight of postdoctoral researchers who have traditionally been the first to suffer from funding cuts, partly because they have little immediate impact on on a country''s scientific competitiveness. Postdocs have been the first to go whenever budgets have been cut, according to Richard Frankel, a physicist at California Polytechnic State University in Saint Luis Obispo, who investigates magnetotaxis in bacteria. “In the short term there will be little effect but the long-term effects can be devastating,” he said.…there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies…According to Peter Stadler, head of a bioinformatics group at the University of Leipzig in Germany, such cuts tend to cause the long-term erosion of a country''s science skills base. “Short-term cuts in science funding translate totally into a brain drain, since they predominantly affect young researchers who are paid from the soft money that is drying up first,” said Stadler. “They either leave science, an irreversible step, or move abroad but do not come back later, because the medium-term effect of cuts is a reduction in career opportunities and fiercer competition giving those already in the system a big advantage.”Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive, according to Xavier Salvatella, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics at the Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Barcelona, Spain. “I do not think the situation is dramatic but too much time is indeed spent writing proposals,” he commented. “Because success rates are decreasing, the time devoted to raise funds to run the lab necessarily needs to increase.”At the University of Adelaide in Australia, Andrew Somogyi, professor of pharmacology, thinks that the situation is serious: “[M]y postdocs would spend about half their time applying for grants.” Somogyi pointed out that the success rate has been declining in Australia, as it has in some other countries. “For ARC [Australian Research Council] the success rate is now close to 20%, which means many excellent projects don''t get funding because the assessment is now so fine cut,” he said.Similar developments have taken place in the USA at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which provides US$16 billion funding per year and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the country''s largest private non-profit funder of cancer research, with a much smaller pot of US$120 million per year. The NIH funded 21% of research proposals submitted to it in 2009, compared with 32% a decade earlier, while the ACS approves only 15% of grant applications, down several percentage points over the past few years.While the NIH is prevented by federal law from allowing observers in to its grant review meetings, the ACS did allow a reporter from Nature to attend one of its sessions on the condition that the names of referees and the applications themselves were not revealed (Powell, 2010). The general finding was that while the review process works well when around 30% of proposals are successful, it tends to break down as the success rate drops, as more arbitrary decisions are made and the risk of strong pitches being rejected increases. This can also discourage the best people from being reviewers because the process becomes more tiring and time-consuming.Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive…In some countries, funding shortfalls are also leading to the loss of permanent jobs, for example in the UK where finance minister George Osborne announced on October 20 that the science budget would be frozen at £4.6 billion, rather than cut as had been expected. Even so, combined with the cut in funding for universities that was announced on the same day, this raises the prospect of reductions in academic staff numbers, which could affect research projects. This follows several years of increasing funding for UK science. Such uncertainty is damaging, according to Cornelius Gross, deputy head of the mouse biology unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Monterotondo, Italy. “Large fluctuations in funding have been shown to cause damage beyond their direct magnitude as can be seen in the US where the Clinton boom was inevitably followed by a slowdown that led to rapid and extreme tightening of budgets,” he said.Some countries are aware of these dangers and have acted to protect budgets and, in some cases, even increase spending. A report by the OECD argued that countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors and emerge from the crisis in a relatively stronger position (OECD, 2009). This was part of the rationale of the US stimulus package, which was intended to provide an immediate lift to the economy and has been followed by a slight increase in funding. The NIH''s budget is set to increase by $1 billion, or 3% from 2010 to 2011, reaching just over $32 billion. This looks like a real-term increase, since inflation in the USA is now between 1 and 2%. However, there are fears that budgets will soon be cut; even now the small increase at the Federal level is being offset by cuts in state support, according to Mike Seibert, research fellow at the US Department of Energy''s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “The stimulus funds are disappearing in the US, and the overall budget for science may be facing a correction at the national level as economic, budget, and national debt issues are addressed,” he said. “The states in most cases are suffering their own budget crises and will be cutting back on anything that is not nailed down.”…countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors…In Germany, the overall funding situation is also confused by a split between the Federal and 16 state governments, each of which has its own budget for science. In contrast to many other countries though, both federal and state governments have responded boldly to the credit crisis by increasing the total budget for the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)—Germany''s largest research funding agency—to €2.3 billion in 2011. Moreover, total funding for research and education from the BMBF (Federal Ministry for Education and Research) is expected to increase by another 7% from €10.9 billion in 2010 to €11.64 billion, although the overall federal budget is set to shrink by 3.8% under Germany''s austerity measures (Anon, 2010). There have also been increases in funding from non-government sources, such as the Fraunhofer Society, Europe''s largest application-oriented research organization, which has an annual budget of €1.6 billion.The German line has been strongly applauded by the European Union, which since 2007 has channelled its funding for cutting-edge research through the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC''s current budget of €7.5 billion, which runs until 2013, was set in 2007 and negotiations for the next period have not yet begun, but the ERC''s executive agency director Jack Metthey has indicated that it will be increased: “The Commission will firmly sustain in the negotiations the view that research and innovation, central to the Europe 2020 Strategy agreed by the Member States, should be a top budgetary priority.” Metthey also implied that governments cutting funding, as the UK had been planning to do, were making a false economy that would gain only in the short term. “Situations vary at the national level but the European Commission believes that governments should maintain and even increase research and innovation investments during difficult times, because these are pro-growth, anti-crisis investments,” he said.Many other countries have to cope with flat or declining science budgets; some are therefore exploring ways in which to do more with less. In Japan, for instance, money has been concentrated on larger projects and fewer scientists, with the effect of intensifying the grant application process. Since 2002, the total Japanese government budget for science and technology has remained flat at around ¥3,500 billion—or €27 billion at current exchange rates—with a 1% annual decline in university support but increased funding for projects considered to be of high value to the economy. This culminated in March 2010 with the launch of the ¥100 billion (€880 million) programme for World Leading Innovative Research and Development on Science and Technology.But such attempts to make funding more competitive or focus it on specific areas could have unintended side effects on innovation and risk taking. One side effect can be favouring scientists who may be less creative but good at attracting grants, according to Roger Butlin, evolutionary biologist at the University of Sheffield in the UK. “Some productive staff are being targeted because they do not bring in grants, so money is taking precedence over output,” said Butlin. “This is very dangerous if it results in loss of good theoreticians or data specialists, especially as the latter will be a critical group in the coming years.”“Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed”There have been attempts to provide funding for young scientists based entirely on merit, such as the ERC ‘Starting Grant'' for top young researchers, whose budget was increased by 25% to €661 million for 2011. Although they are welcome, such schemes could also backfire unless they are supported by measures to continue supporting the scientists after these early career grants expire, according to Gross. “There are moves to introduce significant funding for young investigators to encourage independence, so called anti-brain-drain grants,” he said. “These are dangerous if provided without later independent positions for these people and a national merit-based funding agency to support their future work.”Such schemes might work better if they are incorporated into longer-term funding programmes that provide some security as well as freedom to expand a project and explore promising side avenues. Butlin cited the Canadian ‘Discovery Grant'' scheme as an example worth adopting elsewhere; it supports ongoing programmes with long-term goals, giving researchers freedom to pursue new lines of investigation, provided that they fit within the overall objective of the project.To some extent the system of ‘open calls''—supported by some European funding agencies—has the same objective, although it might not provide long-term funding. The idea is to allow scientists to manoeuvre within a broad objective, rather than confining them to specific lines of research or ‘thematic calls'', which tend to be highly focused. “The majority of funding should be distributed through open calls, rather than thematic calls,” said Thomas Höfer from the Modeling Research Group at the German Cancer Research Center & BioQuant Center in Heidelberg. “Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed. In my experience as a reviewer at both the national and EU level, open calls are also better at funding high-quality research whereas too narrow thematic calls often result in less coherent proposals.”“Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation”Common threads seems to be emerging from the different themes and opinions about funding: budgets should be consistent over time and spread fairly among all disciplines, rather than focused on targeted objectives. They should also be spread across the working lifetime of a scientist rather than being shot in a scatter-gun approach at young researchers. Finally, policies should put a greater emphasis on long-term support for the best scientists and projects, chosen for their merit. Above all, funding policy should reflect the fundamental importance of science to economies, as Seibert concluded: “Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation.”     

U.S. medical countermeasure development since 2001: a long way yet to go

The U.S. government has taken significant steps toward developing and acquiring vaccines, drugs, and other medical countermeasures (MCMs) to protect and treat the population after a biological attack. In contrast to 2001, there is now a procedure for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop, license, and stockpile MCMs for civilian use. Another major accomplishment is smallpox preparedness: There is now an adequate supply of vaccine for every person in the U.S., and there is an alternative vaccine meant for immunocompromised people and those with close contact with them. In spite of these and other accomplishments, the U.S. government MCM effort has been criticized by federal advisory committees, National Academy of Sciences reports, a congressional commission, and outside analysts who state that the efforts lack central leadership and accountability and that the pace of progress has been slow. A clear operational strategy for using MCMs, which would guide their development and acquisition, is also lacking. In this article, we review key areas of progress made since 2001 to develop and acquire MCMs, and we summarize what we judge to be the most critical and often mentioned areas where improvements are needed.     

How Much Does it Cost to Expand a Protected Area System? Some Critical Determining Factors and Ranges of Costs for Queensland

Many governments have recently gone on record promising large-scale expansions of protected areas to meet global commitments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. As systems of protected areas are expanded to be more comprehensive, they are more likely to be implemented if planners have realistic budget estimates so that appropriate funding can be requested. Estimating financial budgets a priori must acknowledge the inherent uncertainties and assumptions associated with key parameters, so planners should recognize these uncertainties by estimating ranges of potential costs. We explore the challenge of budgeting a priori for protected area expansion in the face of uncertainty, specifically considering the future expansion of protected areas in Queensland, Australia. The government has committed to adding ～12 million ha to the reserve system, bringing the total area protected to 20 million ha by 2020. We used Marxan to estimate the costs of potential reserve designs with data on actual land value, market value, transaction costs, and land tenure. With scenarios, we explored three sources of budget variability: size of biodiversity objectives; subdivision of properties; and legal acquisition routes varying with tenure. Depending on the assumptions made, our budget estimates ranged from $214 million to $2.9 billion. Estimates were most sensitive to assumptions made about legal acquisition routes for leasehold land. Unexpected costs (costs encountered by planners when real-world costs deviate from assumed costs) responded non-linearly to inability to subdivide and percentage purchase of private land. A financially conservative approach--one that safeguards against large cost increases while allowing for potential financial windfalls--would involve less optimistic assumptions about acquisition and subdivision to allow Marxan to avoid expensive properties where possible while meeting conservation objectives. We demonstrate how a rigorous analysis can inform discussions about the expansion of systems of protected areas, including the identification of factors that influence budget variability.     

Financing HIV Programming: How Much Should Low- And Middle-Income Countries and their Donors Pay?

Global HIV control funding falls short of need. To maximize health outcomes, it is critical that national governments sustain reasonable commitments, and that international donor assistance be distributed according to country needs and funding gaps. We develop a country classification framework in terms of actual versus expected national domestic funding, considering resource needs and donor financing. With UNAIDS and World Bank data, we examine domestic and donor HIV program funding in relation to need in 84 low- and middle-income countries. We estimate expected domestic contributions per person living with HIV (PLWH) as a function of per capita income, relative size of the health sector, and per capita foreign debt service. Countries are categorized according to levels of actual versus expected domestic contributions, and resource gap. Compared to national resource needs (UNAIDS Investment Framework), we identify imbalances among countries in actual versus expected domestic and donor contributions: 17 countries, with relatively high HIV prevalence and GNI per capita, have domestic funding below expected (median per PLWH $143 and $376, respectively), yet total available funding including from donors would exceed the need ($368 and $305, respectively) if domestic contribution equaled expected. Conversely, 27 countries have actual domestic funding above the expected (medians $294 and $149) but total (domestic+donor) funding does not meet estimated need ($685 and $1,173). Across the 84 countries, in 2009, estimated resource need totaled $10.3 billion, actual domestic contributions $5.1 billion and actual donor contributions $3.7 billion. If domestic contributions would increase to the expected level in countries where the actual was below expected, total domestic contributions would increase to $7.4 billion, turning a funding gap of $1.5 billion into a surplus of $0.8 billion. Even with imperfect funding and resource-need data, the proposed country classification could help improve coherence and efficiency in domestic and international allocations.     

Incentives for biodefense countermeasure development

Therapeutics and vaccines are available for only a fraction of biological threats, leaving populations vulnerable to attacks involving biological weapons. Existing U.S. policies to accelerate commercial development of biodefense products have thus far induced insufficient investment by the biopharmaceutical industry. In this article, we examine the technical, regulatory, and market risks associated with countermeasure development and review existing and proposed federal incentives to increase industrial investment. We conclude with several recommendations. To increase industry's engagement in biodefense countermeasure development, Congress should expand BioShield funding, giving HHS the flexibility to fund a portfolio of biodefense countermeasures whose revenues are comparable to those of commercial drugs. Congress should establish tradable priority review vouchers for developers of new countermeasures. A National Academy of Sciences or National Biodefense Science Board should formally evaluate incentive programs and a government-managed "Virtual Pharma," in which HHS contracts separate stages of research, development, and production to individual firms.     

Reading the tea leaves of Congress. With a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, scientific research in the USA might face budget cuts

The increasing influence of the Tea Party in Congress and politics has potential repercussions for public funding of scientific research in the USAIn 2009, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the USA, amid hopes that he would fix the problems created or left unresolved by his predecessor. However, despite his positive mantra, “Yes we can,” the situation was going to get worse: the country was spiralling towards an economic recession, a collapsing residential real-estate market and the loss of millions of jobs. Now, the deficit lingers around US$14 trillion (US Department of the Treasury, 2011). In response to these hardships and the presence of a perceived ‘socialist'' president in office, a new political movement started brewing that would challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans—the two parties that have dominated US politics for generations. Known as the Tea Party, this movement has been gaining national momentum in its denouncement of the status quo of the government, especially in relation to federal spending, including the support of scientific research.The name is a play on the Boston Tea Party, at which more than 100 American colonists dumped 45 tonnes of tea into Boston Harbour (Massachusetts, USA) in 1773 to protest against the British taxation of imported tea. Whereas the 18th century Boston Tea Party formed to protest against a specific tax, the Tea Party of the 21st century protests against taxes and ‘big'' government in general.Many view Tea Party followers as modern muckrakers, but supporters claim their movement is fundamentally about upholding the US Constitution. Tea Party Patriots, a non-partisan organization, considers itself to be the official home of the Tea Party movement. Fuelled by the values of fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets, Tea Party Patriots believe, these three principles are granted by the Constitution, although not necessarily upheld by the administration.“If you read the Constitution, the limits of government involvement in society [are] pretty well-defined and our government has gone farther and farther beyond the specific limits of the Constitution,” said Mark Meckler, one of the co-founders of Tea Party Patriots. “Our Constitution is not designed as an empowering document, but as a limiting document… [and] was intended to be used as a weapon by the people against the government to keep it in the box.” Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when it comes to cutting back on public spending—even science. “We believe everything needs to be on the table since the government is virtually bankrupt,” Meckler said. “We need to cut the waste, cut the abuse [and] get rid of the departments that shouldn''t exist.”Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when […]cutting […] public spending—even scienceOn 19 February 2011, the US House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by the Republicans, passed a federal-spending bill for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year budget. Among other cuts, the bill called for billions of dollars to be slashed from the budgets of federal science agencies. If the bill is signed into law, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will have $1.6 billion cut from its budget—a 5.2% decrease—and the Department of Energy (DOE) will experience an 18% cut in funding for its Office of Science. Other agencies targeted include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation (NSF; Anon, 2011; Cho, 2011). Although the US Senate, which has a Democratic majority, must consider the bill before any definite amendments to the budget are made, it is likely that there will be some cuts to science funding.Although the House is in favour of science-related cuts, President Obama supports spending more on science education, basic research and clean-energy research. He has also proposed an 11.8% increase in the budget of the DOE, as well as an 8% increase in the NSF budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2011).The House is in favour of science-related cuts, but President Obama is in favour of spending more on science education, basic science and clean-energy researchJoann Roskoski, acting assistant director of the Biology Directorate at the NSF, said her institute is strongly in favour of President Obama''s budget proposal. “President Obama is a very strong supporter of fundamental research and STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] education because he perceives it as investing in the future of the country,” she said. “These are just difficult budgetary times and we''ll just have to wait and see what happens. As they say, the president proposes and Congress disposes.”Karl Scheidt, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois, USA), has four grants from federal agencies. “A couple of my grants expire this year, which is happening at the worst, worst possible time,” explained Scheidt, whose grants are funded by the NIH and the NSF. He added that although many politicians either do not understand or believe in the fundamentals of science, they still preach to the masses about what they ‘think'' they know. “I think it''s an absolute travesty that many people don''t understand science and that many of the Republicans who don''t fully understand science perpetuate incorrect assumptions and scientific falsehoods when speaking in public,” he said. “It makes the US less competitive and puts us collectively at a disadvantage relative to other nations if we don''t succeed in scientific education and innovative research in the future.”Although the Tea Party is not technically associated with the Republican Party, all Tea-Party representatives and senators ran as Republican candidates in the last election. While only one-third of seats in the Senate are on the ballot every two years for a six-year term, all House seats are for a two-year term. In the most recent Senatorial election, 50% of Tea Party-backed candidates won; 10 in total. 140 candidates for seats in the House of Representatives were backed by the Tea Party—all of whom were Republicans—but only 40 won. Nevertheless, with around 100 new Republicans in office, a House controlled by a Republican majority and most Congress-based Republicans in agreement with Tea Party ideals, the Tea Party actually has a lot of sway on the voting floor.Of course, as a fundamentally grass-roots movement, their influence is not limited to the halls of power. Since just before the November election last year, Tea Party-backed politicians have received more scrutiny and media exposure, meaning more people have listened to their arguments against spending on science. In fact, Republican politicians associated with the Tea Party have made critical and sometimes erroneous comments about science. Representative Michelle Bachman, for example, claimed that because carbon dioxide is a natural gas, it is not harmful to our atmosphere (Johnson, 2009). Representative Jack Kingston denounced the theory of evolution and stated that he did not come from a monkey (The Huffington Post, 2011). When asked how old he believes the Earth to be, Senator Rand Paul refused to answer (Binckes, 2010). He also introduced a bill to cut the NSF budget by 62%, and targeted the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Scheidt believes part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in Washington. “It''s difficult sometimes to advocate for and explain the critical importance of basic research and for the most part, Congress may not always appreciate the basic fundamental mission of organizations like the NIH,” Scheidt said. “Arlen Specter was one of the few people who could form coalitions with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and communicate why scientific research is critical. Why discovering new ways to perform transplants and creating new medicines are so important to everyone.”…part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in WashingtonSpecter, a former senator, was Republican until 2009 when he decided to switch political parties. During the last Democratic primary, he lost the Pennsylvania Senate nomination after serving in Congress for more than four decades. The Democratic nominee, Joe Sestak, eventually lost the coveted seat to Pat Toomey, a Tea Party Republican who sponsored an amendment denying NIH funding for some grants while he was a House member. Toomey is also against funding climate science and clean-energy research with federal dollars.Specter was considered a strong supporter of biomedical research, especially cancer research. He was the catalyst that pushed through a great deal of pro-science legislation, such as adding approximately $10 billion to NIH funding as part of the stimulus package in 2009, and doubling NIH funding in the 1990s. As scientific research was so important to him, he served on the US Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Specter was a popular political champion of science not only because of all he had accomplished, but also because so few scientists are elected to office.Among those Democrats who lost their seats to Tea Party Republicans was Congressman Bill Foster. Foster, who once worked for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)—which is funded by the DOE—represented Batavia, Ilinois, which is also where Fermilab has its headquarters. “The new representative in the district where Fermilab resides is Randy Hultgren, a Republican, who has been very supportive of the laboratory since he''s been elected,” said Cindy Conger, Chief Financial Officer at Fermilab. “He''s very interested in us and very interested […] in us having adequate funding.”However, Fermilab is suffering financially. “We will […] have some level of layoffs,” Conger said. “Inadequate federal funding could result in more layoffs or not being able to run our machines for part of the year. These are the things we are contemplating doing in the event of a significant budget cut. Nothing is off the table [but] we will do everything we can to run the [Tevatron] accelerator.”But Fermilab''s desperate appeal for $35 million per year for the next three fiscal years was denied by the Obama administration and not included in the 2012 White House budget request. As a result, the most powerful proton–antiproton accelerator in the USA, the Tevatron, is shutting down indefinitely near the end of this year.Another pro-science Republican is former Congressman John Porter, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He encouraged the federal funding of science while serving as chair of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, as well as on the House Committee on Appropriations and Related Agencies. Like Scheidt, Porter said a problem is that not many members of Congress really understand science or what goes into scientific research.“Many members of Congress don''t realize that the money appropriated for the funding of scientific research through NIH, NSF […] is sent out to research institutes in their districts and states where the research is conducted,” said Porter, who retired from Congress in 2001 after serving for more than 20 years. “They simply haven''t been exposed to it and that''s the fault of the science community, which has a great responsibility to educate about the mechanisms on how we fund scientific research.”Today, Porter is vice-chair of the Foundation for the NIH and also chairs Research!America, a non-profit organization which aims to further medical, health and scientific research as higher national priorities. He also noted that industry would not fund scientific research in the way the government does because there would essentially be no profits. Therefore, federal funding remains essential.“Let''s take away the phones, iPads and everything else [those against the federal funding of science] depend on and see what''s left,” Porter said. “The US is the world leader in science, technology and research and the way we got there and the way we have created the technology that makes life easier […] is a result of making investments in that area.”For now, Scheidt said the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxury. “We unfortunately have a very uneducated population in regard to science and it''s not 100% their fault,” he said. “However, if people took a real interest in science and paid as much attention to stem-cell or drug-discovery research as they did to the Grammy Awards or People magazine I think they would appreciate what''s going on in the science world.”…the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxuryInstead, the USA is lagging behind its competitors when it comes to STEM education. According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the USA is ranked 17th on science and 25th on maths out of 34 countries (US Department of Education, 2010). “We''re in a cluster now, we''re no longer the leading country,” said D. Martin Watterson, a molecular biologist who sits on NIH peer-review committees to evaluate grant proposals. The reason, according to Watterson, is that the first things to be cut after a budget decrease are training grants for continuing education efforts. Moreover, the USA already lacks highly trained workers in the field of science. “In some disciplines, employers now look to other places in Europe and Asia to find those trained personnel,” Watterson said.Ultimately, most people at least want a final budget to be passed so that there is sufficient time to plan ahead. However, Georgetown University political science professor Clyde Wilcox thinks that a compromise is not so simple. “The problem is that it''s a three-way poker game. People are going to sit down and they''re going to be bargaining, negotiating and bluffing each other,” he said. “The House Republicans just want to cut the programs that they don''t like, so they''re not cutting any Republican programs for the most part.”As a result, institutions such as the EPA find themselves being targeted by the Republicans. Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding. Wilcox said that it is not necessarily a good thing to continue negotiating if nothing gets done and the country is dependent on continuing resolutions.Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding“What the real problem is, when push comes to shove, someone has to blink,” he said. “I don''t think there will be deep cuts in science for a number of reasons, one is science is consistent with the Democratic ideology of education and the Republican ideology of investment. And then, we don''t really spend that much on science anyway so you couldn''t come remotely close to balancing the budget even if you eliminated everything.”Although during his time in Congress representatives of both parties were not as polarized as they are today, Porter believes the reason they are now is because of the political climate. “The president has made [science] a very important issue on his agenda and unfortunately, there are many Republicans today that say if he''s for it, I''m against it,” Porter said. In fact, several government officials ignored repeated requests or declined to comment for this article.“It''s time for everybody from both parties to stand up for the country, put the party aside and find solutions to our problems,” Porter commented. “The American people didn''t just elect us to yell at each other, they elected us to do a job. You have to choose priorities and to me the most important priority is to have our children lead better lives, to have all human beings live longer, healthier, happier lives and to have our economy grow and prosper and our standard of living maintained—the only way to do that is to invest where we lead the world and that''s in science.”     

The route to a national health policy lies through the states.

National health program legislation has been becalmed in the Congress for almost 80 years. Despite periodic cries of "crisis," legislation never emerges from committee. Periodically, campaigns have been mounted without success. Tactical efforts to circumvent direct action by legislating bits and pieces of related programs, Medicare and Medicaid, health maintenance organization support, and pre-budgeting, have complicated operation of the medical care system and stimulated intractable cost inflation. For the first 150 years of American history, responsibility for public health and welfare legislation rested with the states. Most public health policies originated in a state or a few states and then later became national legislation. The state efforts were, in effect, natural experiments. After the Depression and the flood of funding from the federal government in subsequent years, the states faded as innovators. It is proposed that funding a few state models to restimulate state initiative in this regard will provide a more effective route to a national health program.     

Funding in the firing line

With large charities such as the Wellcome Trust or the Gates Foundation committed to funding research, is there a risk that politicians could cut public funding for science?Towards the end of 2010, with the British economy reeling from the combined effects of the global recession, the burst bubble of property speculation and a banking crisis, the country came close to cutting its national science and research budget by up to 25%. UK Business Secretary Vince Cable argued, “there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding” (BBC, 2010). The outcry from UK scientists was both passionate and reasoned until, in the end, the British budget slashers blinked and the UK government backed down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced in October that the government would freeze science and research funding at £4.6 billion per annum for four years, although even this represents about a 10% cut in real terms, because of inflation.“there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”There has been a collective sigh of relief. Sir John Savill, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (UK), said: “The worst projections for cuts to the science budget have not been realised. It''s clear that the government has listened to and acted on the evidence showing investment in science is vital to securing a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future.”Yet Britain is unusual compared with its counterparts elsewhere in the European Union (EU) and the USA, because private charities, such as the Wellcome Trust (London, UK) and Cancer Research UK (London, UK), already have budgets that rival those of their government counterparts. It was this fact, coupled with UK Prime Minister David Cameron''s idea of the ‘big society''—a vision of smaller government, increased government–private partnerships and a bigger role for non-profit organizations, such as single-disease-focused charities—that led the British government to contemplate reducing its contribution to research, relying on the private sector to pick up the slack.Jonathan Grant, president of RAND Europe (London, UK)—a not-for-profit research institute that advises on policy and decision-making—commented: “There was a strong backlash and [the UK Government] pulled back from that position [to cut funding]. But that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it.”“…that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it”But the UK was not alone in mooting the idea that research budgets might have to suffer under the financial crisis. Some had worried that declining government funding of research would spread across the developed world, although the worst of these fears have not been realized.Peter Gruss, President of the Max Planck Society (Munich, Germany), explained that his organization receives 85% of its more-than €1.5 billion budget from the public purses of the German federal government, German state ministries and the EU, and that not all governments have backed away from their commitment to research. In fact, during the crisis, the German and US governments boosted their funding of research with the goal of helping the economic recovery. In 2009, German Chancellor Angela Merkel''s government, through negotiation with the German state science ministries, approved a windfall of €18 billion in new science funding, to be spread over the next decade. Similarly, US President Barack Obama''s administration boosted spending on research with a temporary stimulus package for science, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.Even so, Harry Greenberg, Senior Associate Dean for Research at Stanford University (California, USA) pointed out that until the US government injected stimulus funding, the budget at the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, Maryland, USA) had essentially “been flat as a pancake for five or six years, and that means that it''s actually gone down and it''s having an effect on people being able to sustain their research mission.”Similarly, Gruss said that the research community should remain vigilant. “I think one could phrase it as there is a danger. If you look at Great Britain, there is the Wellcome Trust, a very strong funding organization for life sciences and medical-oriented, health-oriented research. I think it''s in the back of the minds of the politicians that there is a gigantic foundation that supports that [kind of research]. I don''t think one can deny that. There is an atmosphere that people like the Gates family [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] invests in health-related issues, particularly in the poorer countries [and that] maybe that is something that suffices.”The money available for research from private foundations and charities is growing in both size and scope. According to Iain Mattaj, Director General of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL; Heidelberg, Germany), this growth might not be a bad thing. As he pointed out, private funding often complements government funding, with charities such as the Wellcome Trust going out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions. “My feeling is that the reason that the UK government is freezing research funding has all to do with economics and nothing to do with the fact that there are potentially private funders,” he said. “Several very large charities in particular are putting a lot of money into health research. The Gates Foundation is the biggest that has just come on the scene, but the Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI; Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA] and the Wellcome Trust are very big, essentially private charities which have their own agendas.”…charities such as the Wellcome Trust [go] out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions​contributionsOpen in a separate window© CorbisBut, as he explained, these charities actually contribute to the overall health research budget, rather than substituting funds from one area to another. In fact, they often team up to tackle difficult research questions in partnership with each other and with government. Two-thirds of the €140 million annual budget of EMBL comes from the European states that agree to fund it, with additional contributions from private sources such as the Wellcome Trust and public sources such as the NIH.Yet over the years, as priorities have changed, the focus of those partnerships and the willingness to spend money on certain research themes or approaches has shifted, both within governments and in the private sector. Belief in the success of US President Richard Nixon''s famous ‘war on cancer'', for example, has waned over the years, although the fight and the funding continues. “I don''t want to use the word political, because of course the decisions are sometimes political, but actually it was a social priority to fight cancer. It was a social priority to fight AIDS,” Mattaj commented. “For the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, which are fighting tropical diseases, they see that as a social necessity, rather than a personal interest if you like.”Nevertheless, Mattaj is not surprised that there is an inclination to reduce research spending in the UK and many smaller countries battered by the economic downturn. “Most countries have to reduce public spending, and research is public spending. It may be less badly hit than other aspects of public spending. [As such] it''s much better off than many other aspects of public spending.”A shift away from government funding to private funding, especially from disease-focused charities, worries some that less funding will be available for basic, curiosity-driven research—a move from pure research to ‘cure'' research. Moreover, charities are often just as vulnerable to economic downturns, so relying on them is not a guarantee of funding in harsh economic times. Indeed, greater reliance on private funding would be a return to the era of ‘gentlemen scientists'' and their benefactors (Sidebar A).

Sidebar A | Gentlemen scientists

Greater reliance on private funding would return science to a bygone age of gentlemen scientists relying on the largesse of their wealthy sponsors. In 1831, for example, naturalist Charles Darwin''s (1809–1882) passage on the HMS Beagle was paid for by his father, albeit reluctantly. According to Laura Snyder, an expert on Victorian science and culture at St John''s University (New York, USA), by the time Darwin returned to England in 1836, the funding game had changed and government and private scientific societies had begun to have a bigger role. When Sir John Frederick William Herschel (1791–1871), an English mathematician, astronomer, chemist, experimental photographer and inventor, journeyed to Cape Colony in 1833, the British government offered to give him a free ride aboard an Admiralty ship. “Herschel turned them down because he wanted to be free to do whatever he wanted once he got to South Africa, and he didn''t want to feel beholden to government to do what they wanted him to do,” Snyder explained, drawing from her new book The Philosophical Breakfast Club, which covers the creation of the modern concept of science.Charles Babbage (1791–1871), the mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer, was a member of the same circle as Herschel and William Whewell (1794–1866), a polymath, geologist, astronomer and theologian, who coined the word ''scientist''. Although he was wealthy, having inherited £100,000 in 1827—valued at about £13.3 million in 2008—Babbage felt that government should help pay for his research that served the public interest.“Babbage was asking the government constantly for money to build his difference engine,” Snyder said. Babbage griped about feeling like a tradesman begging to be paid. “It annoyed him. He felt that the government should just have said, ''We will support the engine, whatever it is that you need, just tell us and we''ll write you a check''. But that''s not what the government was about to do.”Instead, the British government expected Babbage to report on his progress before it loosened its purse strings. Snyder explained, “What the government was doing was a little bit more like grants today, in the sense that you have to justify getting more money and you have to account for spending the money. Babbage just wanted an open pocketbook at his disposal.”In the end the government donated £17,000, and Babbage never completed the machine.Janet Rowley, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, is worried that the change in funding will make it more difficult to obtain money for the kind of research that led to her discovery in the 1970s of the first chromosomal translocations that cause cancer. She calls such work ‘fishing expeditions''. She said that the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (White Plains, New York, USA), for example—a non-profit funder of research—has modified its emphasis: “They have now said that they are going to put most of their resources into translational work and trying to take ideas that are close to clinical application, but need what are called incubator funds to ramp up from a laboratory to small-scale industrial production to increase the amount of compound or whatever is required to do studies on more patients.”This echoes Vince Cable''s view that taxpayers should not have to spend money on research that is not of direct economic, technological or health benefit to them. But if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?…if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?Iain Mattaj believes that the line between pure research and cure research is actually too blurred to make these kinds of funding distinctions. “In my view, it''s very much a continuum. I think many people who do basic research are actually very interested in the applications of their research. That''s just not their expertise,” he said. “I think many people who are at the basic end of research are more than happy to see things that they find out contributing towards things that are useful for society.”Jack Dixon, Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer at HHMI, also thinks that the line is blurry: “This divide between basic research and translational research is somewhat arbitrary, somewhat artificial in nature. I think every scientist I know who makes important, basic discoveries likes to [...] see their efforts translate into things that help humankind. Our focus at the Hughes has always been on basic things, but we love to see them translated into interesting products.” Even so, HHMI spends less than US $1 billion annually on research, which is overshadowed by the $30 billion spent by the NIH and the relatively huge budgets of the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. “We''re a small player in terms of the total research funding in the US, so I just don''t see the NIH pulling back on supporting research,” Dixon said.By way of example, Brian Druker, Professor of Medicine at the Oregon Health & Science University (Portland, Oregon, USA) and a HHMI scientist, picked up on Rowley''s work with cancer-causing chromosomal translocations and developed the blockbuster anti-cancer drug, imatinib, marketed by Novartis. “Brian Druker is one of our poster boys in terms of the work he''s done and how that is translated into helping people live longer lives that have this disease,” Dixon commented.There is a similar view at Stanford. The distinction between basic and applied is “in the eye of the beholder,” Greenberg said. “Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs. It''s always been a little difficult to convey, but at least here at Stanford, that''s number one. Number two, many of our very basic researchers enjoy thinking about the translational or clinical implications of their basic findings and some of them want to be part of doing it. They want some benefit for mankind other than pure knowledge.”“Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs”If it had not backed down from the massive cuts to the research budget that were proposed, the intention of the UK Government to cut funding for basic, rather than applied, research might have proven difficult to implement. Identifying which research will be of no value to society is like trying to decide which child will grow up to be Prime Minister. Nevertheless, most would agree that governments have a duty to get value-for-money for the taxpayer, but defining the value of research in purely economic or translational terms is both short-sighted and near impossible. Even so, science is feeling the economic downturn and budgets are tighter than they have been for a long time. As Greenberg concluded, “It''s human nature when everybody is feeling the pinch that you think [yours] is bigger than the next guy''s, but I would be hard pressed to say who is getting pinched, at least in the biomedical agenda, more than who else.”