This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Health Policy  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

John Edward Porter, JD

JAMA. 2005;294:1385-1389.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Today, the United States is only one decade removed from what was then a forecast of difficult meager times for the national investment in medical and scientific research. In 1995, the US House of Representatives budget resolution called for a cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of 5% for fiscal year (FY) 1996 and a freeze on NIH funding through FY 2000.¹ However, the NIH received an increase of almost 6% for FY 1996, followed by 7% increases in the following 2 years² when the economy was not yet strong. Those years of increases were followed by the remarkable feat of doubling the NIH budget over 5 years—FYs 1999-2003.^3(p83) Bad news can be turned into good news, bad numbers into better, even pacesetting ones.

Influencing the impact of current political and economic realities on the United States investment in research requires recognition . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Budget Realities

Author Affiliation: Hogan & Harston, LLP, Washington, DC.