The Scientist: NewsBlog:
NIH wins stimulus jackpot
Posted by Alla Katsnelson
[Entry posted at 12th February 2009 04:18 PM GMT]
The US Senate and House of Representatives have hammered out the differences between their versions of the economic recovery bill, to the tune of $10 billion for the National Institute of Health, according to early reports.
This sum, which was approved in the Senate version of the bill earlier this week, includes $8.5 for research and $1.5 for rebuilding agency facilities, according to ScienceInsider, which stresses that its source is a "preliminary" factsheet obtained from the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The NIH seems set to receive the biggest windfall, but other agencies will get their booty too, ScienceInsider reports: $3 billion for the National Science Foundation (the amount originally approved in the House but stripped down in the Senate version of the bill), along with $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, $400 million for a special energy office, and $1 billion for NASA. Official figures should be released later today. Related stories: [11th February 2009] [9th February 2009] [4th February 2009] |
Rate this article
It's a funding for the next two years
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-02-14 09:26:47]
[Comment posted 2009-02-14 09:26:47]
The Washington Post article on the same topic reported that it's only for the next two years. Is $10 billion enough? Who knows? But, it's certainly better than nothing and if the scientific community wants such government funding to continue after two years, then it needs to shape up, as well, and show some really concrete, signficant results for the taxpayers' money.
jam today, but what about tomorrow?
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-02-13 07:36:34]
[Comment posted 2009-02-13 07:36:34]
It is unclear whether this is a one-off boost for NIH that must be allocated in this fiscal year, or whether this represents a permanent yearly budget increase. The former will be of little use, whereas the latter needs to be set in stone to be of real use.
What about in two years?
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 18:59:07]
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 18:59:07]
NIH and NSF may get this money now but what happens 2 years from now? Will the funding continue? I spent the last 25 years riding up and down the NIH, NSF rollercoaster ride and now I am getting off. I have spent the last 2 years retraining in computer science. IT has a better outlook for jobs.
NIH and other scientific agencies desperately needed this funding
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 13:47:03]
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 13:47:03]
Please do not refer to these funds as "booty" or "jackpot". Funding scientific research is not a game and shouldn't be likened to a treasure hunt. These funds restore proper funding for these organizations and are long over due. Hopefully the funds will restore what was siphoned off by the last administration for their war chests.
Excuse me?
by Ellen Hunt
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 12:27:40]
[Comment posted 2009-02-12 12:27:40]
You describe this as "booty"? It's a "windfall"?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
NIH spending, NSF spending, returns $2-$3 for every dollar spent. It is good spending. IT grows the economy, and provides efficiently spent direct benefit from high tech job creation! ( And it can be even better if we scientists can clean up our growing corruption problem in medical sciences.)
Not much of this bill can say that!
Do you have any clue what politics is? What could be done to the bill by reading YOUR ARTICLE in congress? My god!
For your information, THE BILL HASN'T PASSED YET!
But it would be irresponsible to write in this casual way that is incorrect afterward also! This is juvenile.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
NIH spending, NSF spending, returns $2-$3 for every dollar spent. It is good spending. IT grows the economy, and provides efficiently spent direct benefit from high tech job creation! ( And it can be even better if we scientists can clean up our growing corruption problem in medical sciences.)
Not much of this bill can say that!
Do you have any clue what politics is? What could be done to the bill by reading YOUR ARTICLE in congress? My god!
For your information, THE BILL HASN'T PASSED YET!
But it would be irresponsible to write in this casual way that is incorrect afterward also! This is juvenile.
Comment on this blog