Commercial beneficiaries should share costs
It has long been established that the benefits of research funded by the National Institutes of Health flow freely to academic and commercial enterprises and ultimately to the general public whose taxes have funded the research. It is now evident that because of limitations of the NIH budget, many meritorious grant applications are not being funded. The negative results of this funding crunch have been widespread; not only has important research into vital issues of disease causality and treatment been delayed, but the research infrastructure in manpower has been seriously compromised. Long-productive labs have been closed, established scientists no longer participate in research, and most importantly, graduate students and young professors are being persuaded that academic research is not a viable career choice.
Congress and the American public have been generous in supporting research in basic and applied medical sciences, but this support has not kept up with the explosion in knowledge that now presents the opportunity to approach and solve some of the fundamental problems in medicine. A new model is needed for supplementing the NIH budget with additional funding not derived from the federal budget. I am suggesting that some of the costs be shared by those commercial interests that benefit from NIH-funded research.
The “wool tax” in Australia is one model for this type of research funding support. A certain percentage of revenue from the wool industry is set aside to support research that could impact the wool industry; this could be basic research in animal husbandry or diseases of sheep, but the tax also has funded basic research in protein chemistry of wool proteins.
Another possible model would be to impose a license fee and royalty structure on companies that use NIH-funded basic or applied research findings in their product development. Commercial support of NIH funding could be offset by tax credits for the participating companies, thus reducing the direct costs to these companies.
Many other equitable models could be proposed, but the governing principle should be that companies that benefit from NIH-supported applied or basic research compensate the sources of these discoveries.
Join the ASBMB Today mailing list
Sign up to get updates on articles, interviews and events.
While the agency has made progress with intramural cases, it has been less successful with extramural ones.
What the Supreme Court's DACA ruling means for undocumented students and the colleges and universities they attend
At least for now, hundreds of thousands of students can stay in school without facing new hardships.
As a result of the Trump administration’s actions and inaction, Ben Corb writes, the U.S. was late to adopt a testing protocol to help track and slow the spread of COVID-19.
The agency has investigated 189 scientists suspected of violating NIH policies and has found a majority of them guilty of failing to disclose foreign affiliations.
The Endless Frontier Act would rename, add a directorate to and pump up to $100 billion in new funding into the agency. It also would fix the uneven distribution of jobs and capital concentrated now in just a few cities.