Science Communication, Advocacy and the Federal Budget
Recently, the federal budget for the fiscal year (FY) 2019 (beginning October 1st, 2018) was released. Shockingly, the initial plan called for brutal cuts to basic research funding agencies—slashing the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) by 27% and 29%, respectively. While Congress subsequently lifted spending caps to compensate for these losses, the budgets of both the NIH and NSF will now remain stagnant at levels for FY2017.
Although catastrophic funding losses have been avoided, these flat budgets are still worrisome. When adjusted for inflation, a stable budget equates to a decrease in funding. Furthermore, three health research institutes currently located in the Agency of Healthcare and Human Services and the CDC will be terminated and their successors will be created within the NIH. The relocation of these institutes without an increase in NIH funding will further strain the budget.
Numerous scientific societies have responded with criticism to the federal government’s budget proposal. A statement from The Society for Neuroscience (SfN) highlighted the public’s support for scientific research funding and emphasized that adequate funding is critical to combat devastating diseases, such as Alzheimer’s. Likewise, a press release from the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) expressed concern regarding America’s ability to lead in science and innovation amidst stagnant funding.
Educating elected officials on the importance of scientific research is a key focus of scientific societies. ASBMB sponsors an opportunity for graduate students and postdocs to travel to the capital and meet with Congress through their annual Hill Day. Societies also encourage local action. For example, the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) compiles an advocacy toolkit to guide members through the process of contacting local representatives, scheduling meetings and organizing lab tours. On the UNC campus, the Science Policy Advocacy Group (SPAG) is a resource for graduate students and postdocs to gain skills in science communication and advocacy through outreach events, workshops and seminars.
At the core of science advocacy is the ability to communicate why science is necessary. While the significance of developing new cancer therapies is clear, the importance of basic science research is still often misunderstood. Basic science research is often described as “curiosity-driven” and asks fundamental questions such as: “How do cells move?” This basic research provides a thorough understanding of cellular processes that is critical for later medical innovations. In the 1990s, Yoshinori Ohsumi observed an unusual structure in yeast cells when he starved them. His work in yeast was essential for uncovering the mechanism behind autophagy, a recycling pathway in the cell. Today, researchers know that defects in autophagy result in cancer, Parkinson’s Disease and Type 2 Diabetes, and Ohsumi was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2016.
Ohsumi’s story demonstrates that breakthroughs in basic science are critical for breakthroughs in medicine. Yet, proper funding must be secured before further innovations in either field can occur. As a result, it is critical to create a culture that both understands and values scientific research.
Peer edited by Kelsey Miller.
Follow us on social media and never miss an article: