Uglification of NIH

The National Institutes of Health was once a serene collection of research labs and medical buildings in Bethesda, Md., just north of Washington, D.C. The grounds, shaded by large trees, had surroundings so open and academic that the site was referred to as "the campus." Scientists competed to work in the diverse and creative atmosphere. Congress provided a steady income to the scientists at NIH, occasionally adding another institute when it believed one was needed.

The possible catalyst for these changes is money. In 1990, the total NIH budget was $7 billion. By 2004, it was $28 billion. These huge increases of government money did more than just enable great increases in research; they made NIH a highly visible target.

NIH receives more money than nine Cabinet departments. Members of Congress are not going to sit and let this amount of federal tax money be spent without having something to say.

A prime example is the amendment introduced by Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) in July 2003 to the fiscal 2004 appropriations bill for NIH. This amendment specifically prohibited NIH from funding several research grants because they dealt with sexuality research. The amendment was defeated by only two votes, an indication that Congress is becoming increasingly willing to interfere in the details of research.

Scientists at NIH also face increased restrictions on travel and meeting attendance. Policies put forth by the Department of Health & Human Services last year limit the numbers of researchers who can attend international meetings and even what they can say. According to an HHS memo, scientists employed by the government speaking at international meetings are forbidden from saying anything contradictory to official U.S. policies (C&EN, Aug. 16, 2004, page 20). This would include talks on politically sensitive research like cloning, AIDS, or embryonic stem cells.

NIH was also hit with demands related to public access of research results. Although NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni had been pondering a policy on public access, Congress stepped in and forced the issue. In the appropriations committee report last summer, Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.) inserted language telling NIH to set up a system by which all NIH-sponsored research would be deposited in PubMed Central--the agency's free digital biomedical literature archive--within six months of publication.

Faced with this congressional demand, Zerhouni quickly proposed a public-access policy for NIH-sponsored research following Istook's guidelines. Although the access policy eventually adopted only requests that NIH research be deposited in PubMed and the buffer period is one year instead of six months, the plan is basically what Istook sought. This would be an enormous and controversial undertaking, costing $4 million per year to manage, according to some estimates.

The biggest blow so far has been NIH's overreaction to charges of conflict of interest. On the basis of a Los Angeles Times article about a few NIH researchers who made big deals with drug companies, Congress held a series of well-publicized hearings that chastised the agency for ethical failures. Again, Zerhouni quickly came up with a new conflict-of-interest policy for NIH employees that seems to do more to satisfy the political problems than help the scientists at NIH.

Since the policy took effect in February, a group of employees has formally asked Zerhouni to revise the policy, and at least one institute director has said he will resign (C&EN, April 11, page 10). Another scientist won't take a top NIH job unless the policy is modified. Several other researchers have indicated that they are leaving. Many scientists are concerned about the impact of the rules on their personal and professional lives. In fact, the concern has been so great that Zerhouni has already said the rules will probably be changed.

The impact of these congressional assaults on NIH could be severely unfavorable in the performance of research and recruiting of talented scientists. If young researchers believe NIH has become an oppressive workplace with draconian restrictions and random rules, they will go elsewhere. At a time when the U.S. is wondering where its next generation of scientists is coming from, losing the once widely held feeling that NIH is a free and open place to do research would be a great loss indeed.