 |
|
NIH Support for Basic and Clinical Research
Biomedical Researcher Angst in 2006
David G. Nathan, MD;
Alan N. Schechter, MD
JAMA. 2006;295:2656-2658.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The noose around the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is once again tightening as its appropriations remain almost level for the third year, after the virtual doubling of its budget between 1998 and 2003. Many biomedical researchers feel profoundly threatened, and some are laying part of the blame at the feet of the director of NIH because he has developed several new trans-NIH research programs—within the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research1—including ones aimed at strengthening clinical research. However, this finger-pointing is very misdirected.
When, right after the Second World War, Vannevar Bush persuaded President Harry Truman to endorse a major investment of federal funds in science, a field Bush described as "the endless frontier,"2 the die was cast to expand the purview of what was then the National Institute of Health. The former sleepy campus, nestled on a . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Author Affiliations: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Nathan); Molecular Medicine Branch of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Schechter).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Reducing Death and Disability From Stroke: The Role of Governmental Advocacy
Goldstein
Stroke 2008;39:2898-2901.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sustaining the Engine of U.S. Biomedical Discovery
Heinig et al.
NEJM 2007;357:1042-1047.
FULL TEXT
Stroke and Vascular Cognitive Impairment: A Transdisciplinary, Translational and Transactional Approach
Hachinski
Stroke 2007;38:1396-1396.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
