Obama disappoints, flatlines on NIH 2013 budget

flatlineThe biomedical research community is very disappointed in President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget for NIH in which it is proposed to keep the NIH budget the same as the previous year at $30.7 billion.

This proposal shows a weak commitment to biomedical sciences and exhibits little foresight. 

I believe that NIH is a American jewel and is a net money maker for the country. 

By taking this action with no increase in the NIH budget at the starting point, Obama almost guarantees that the NIH budget will be cut in the end as this is negotiated with Republicans.

Even if there is no cut, there is in reality a cut because (A) a flat budget fails to keep up with the predicted 3.5% in biomedical inflation, and (B) the NIH budget was cut in the previous year.

By flatlining the NIH budget, scientists are wondering if there are Whitehouse staffers in power who are flatlining in terms of their brain activity.

1 thought on “Obama disappoints, flatlines on NIH 2013 budget”

  1. Not saying it’s OK that it went down like this, just trying to shed a little light on it.

    From a political strategy stand point in an election year, it appears to be horse trading for the long term security of future funding increases. He can’t increase funding in the next budget session if he’s not in office, and wouldn’t count on the GOP to do it at all.

    The White house knows that the bulk of the scientific community understand a GOP threat to NIH funding cuts, and at the end of the day will vote for him. This enables him to shift some funding to areas where he might need more support from congress to push things through.

    The headline that says he slashed education is far more damaging and the GOP would use it against him. If he flat lines the NIH on the other hand, most voters don’t know what that even is and the GOP would not use it – they’re not to keen on bringing science in as a talking point unless they want to scare folks with abortion ect… Anything more is to complicated and poor strategy for them to reach the independent voter.

Comments are closed.