On June 2, officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. Chair Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) explained that this was the subcommittee’s fifth hearing intended to highlight research activities at the NIH, stating, “These bipartisan hearings have educated Members and others about the work that the NIH is doing so we can assess how to help this important research entity better meet its stated mission.”
Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) expressed his concern that the administration’s budget would cut funding for the NIH in FY2005. Although he vowed to protect the NIH budget during the appropriations process, he felt it important that the NIH “revisit how it allocates funding” for specific research activities.
Demonstrating the complexity of the NIH budget, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni explained that the budget could be examined in a number of ways: allocations for the 27 institutes and centers; funding “mechanisms,” such as grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or in-house programs; allocations for research centers, which support groups of investigators working on a common disease or research area; funding of specific diseases or conditions; and the success rate of grant applications. He provided the subcommittee with details on how the NIH expects to allocate its FY2004 funds, including $5.6 billion for cancer research, $3.6 billion for women’s health research, $3.2 billion for pediatric research, and $2.4 billion for cardiovascular research. Dr. Zerhouni said that in order “to maintain a research portfolio that balances public health needs and scientific opportunities, NIH seeks input through multiple channels, including the Advisory Committee to the Director and the NIH Council of Public Representatives. NIH uses an unparalleled peer review system involving its Center for Scientific Review as well as separate vetting programs within each Institute and Center. These programs are part of a two-tiered system of advisory bodies and specialized review committees that guarantees funding of the best applications from among the nearly 50,000 research and training applications reviewed annually.” Dr. Zerhouni has encouraged each institute and center “to evaluate their own priority setting and portfolio management processes and seek best practices or other methods of enhancing their systems.” He also has asked the institutes and centers to pool their resources for cross-cutting initiatives, such as obesity research.
During the question and answer session, Rep. Bilirakis asked how the NIH has tackled the problem of obesity. Dr. Zerhouni explained that obesity was declared “an area of priority” by the Bush administration and was allocated $400 million in FY2003. He said that 55 percent of the funding was redistributed to researchers across the country, and approximately one-third was invested in clinical trials. He noted that in the future, the NIH plans to invest more funding in the prevention of childhood obesity and on research to disconnect obesity from diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-NJ) focused his comments on NIH-supported grants of “questionable priority.” Specifically, he questioned the purpose of a study on wall decorations in college dorm rooms. Dr. Zerhouni said that the NIH funded the grant over three years ago, and it is no longer active. He explained that researchers have found that wall decorations provide a good personality analysis and could indicate the presence of mental illness among youth.
