ASBMB expresses concerns about proposed NIH budget cuts
On July 19, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology released a statement expressing concerns on the National Institutes of Health budget proposed in the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies funding bill. The bill allocates only $44.7 billion for NIH, which represents a 6.4% decrease from fiscal year 2023 levels and would have detrimental repercussions for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the society said.
If passed, the appropriations bill would cut NIAID’s budget by almost 23%, NINDS’s budget by 5% and both NCI and NIGMS’s budgets by almost 3%, ASBMB said. The society strongly urged policymakers to sustain funding for the NIH with a base budget of $51 billion.
“We are concerned and disheartened to see this proposed bill come out of the House,” Sarina Neote, ASBMB’s public affairs director, said. “In this economy, with inflation and the rising cost of doing science, any budget cuts to NIH institutes will result in lost jobs and halted research progress. The money NIH awards each year plays a crucial role in supporting the U.S. economy.”
In fact, every dollar awarded to researchers by NIH doubles its economic impact. In 2023, the $36.68 billion granted to researcher supported over half a million jobs and almost $97 billion in economic activity.
Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?
Become a member to receive the print edition monthly and the digital edition weekly.Learn more
Get the latest from ASBMB Today
Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.
The ASBMB is advocating for a sustained or increased NIH budget; we need our members to email their elected officials.
“The world is now facing some of its most challenging issues…. Research shows that bringing diversity to the table can help,” writes Jacob Carter of the Union of Concerned Scientists.