ject to adjustment by the Administration without congressional approval, then Federal funding for research becomes a totally uncertain situation and the advisability of investing time and effort in the competition for funds becomes impossible to assess.

Last fall, encouraged by the budget provided by the Congress, we as chairmen urged your faculty in our departments to compete for support from a generously-funded NIH extramural program.

Clearly, the research community as a whole was optimistic about funding opportunities, as demonstrated by the increase in applications for research project grants-18,600 estimated for fiscal year 1985, compared with approximately 16,800 in fiscal years 1983 and 1984.

Suddenly in January, we became aware that our optimism may have been unfounded. As this uncertainty has continued, we have watched as talented scientists have grown increasingly disheartened. We can tell you from first-hand experience that the research community is becoming demoralized.

It appears that the number of NIH grants may be decreased by almost 25 percent; the competition for funding seems to have been reduced to a structureless game; and individual scientists, believing that their success or failure could be determined by an arbitrary change in NIH funding policies, are reconsidering their decisions to engage in research careers.

In short, regardless of whether it is implemented, the OMB directive has had a major adverse impact on the research community and the extent of the damage is broadened as each day passes with the issue unresolved. Again, the only signs of encouragement for scientists have been congressional initiatives to prevent the implementation of the "forward-funding" policy.

It is impossible to overstate our appreciation for the actions taken by the members of this subcommittee and other congressional leaders who are determined to assure that health research is funded adequately and fairly.

For the remainder of my time, I would like to discuss the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1986. Certainly, all of us recognize that the Federal deficit must be reduced if we are to enjoy economic stability.

Consequently, I will not presume to suggest that Federal spending for research and development should be increased. Rather, the Association appeals to the members of this subcommittee to assure that health research receives an appropriate share of overall R&D expenditures.

It is clear that the Administration believes the government can afford to strengthen its research programs. Under the President's budget, total Federal R&D spending would be increased by approximately 13 percent, with the research programs of the Department of Defense receiving the large increase-22 percent.

However, health research would not enjoy similar growth. In fact, the NIH budget would be reduced by approximately 6 percent. This imbalance is more striking when one examines the actual figures involved.

The President has requested a $39.4 billion budget for military research and development-more than eight times the $4.852 billion budget proposed for the NIH.

Is the importance or promise of weapons research really eight times greater than the potential benefits of today's biomedical research effort? We think not. Not at this point in the development of medical knowledge when basic biological discoveries are leading us to understand literally hundreds of the diseases and disorders that affect mankind. Not at a time when it is estimated that:

Eleven million people are diagnosed as having diabetes with annual treatment costs of approximately $10 billion;

Two million Americans are suffering from Alzheimer's disease at an annual cost of $25 billion;

One hundred million Americans are being treated for digestive disorders at a cost of about $50 billion annually.

And 3.5 million Americans are debilitated by stroke and injuries to the central nervous system and annual treatment costs for neurological and communicative disorders are approximately $114 billion.

Consider the savings that can be achieved in economic as well as human terms if we can conquer these and other debilitating disorders. In light of such statistics and the enormous promise of today's health research effort, we fail to see how the Administration can conclude the the government should reduce its investment in medical science.

As an alternative to the Administration's request for the NIH, the Association, along with over 125 other organizations, has endorsed the proposal of the ad hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. Specifically, we concur that the fiscal year 1986 budget for NIH should be increased by at least $555 million over the current year's budget.

This recommendation is based on careful calculations of the funds required to provide stable support for most NIH programs and allow modest growth for several activities including research centers, research training and career development awards, and facility construction.

We believe that this is a responsible proposal which recognizes the funding requirements of a productive bioscience effort within the context of the need to control government spending.

I am sure that you have already seen the attached document outlining the ad hoc group's recommendation. In addition, the booklet contains some fascinating information about the research accomplishments of recent years, the savings achieved as a result of advances in medical science, and the areas of medical research in which major breakthroughs appear to be imminent. Rather than reiterating these details, may I simply commend the document to your attention.

In closing, may I again express the Association's appreciation to the members of this subcommittee for your tireless efforts on behalf of medical research and the health of the American people. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding booklet follows:]

Diabetes can cause harmful changes in the blood vessels of the retina. In people who have had the disease for a long time, a network of fine abnormal vessels may appear (A), then deteriorate and hemorrhage, causing blurriness of vision or even blindness.

A National Eye Institute (NEI) study showed that treatment of diabetic retinopathy with a laser (called photocoagulation) cuts in half the risk of severe vision loss from this disease, which is a leading cause of blindness among adult Americans. In photocoagulation, powerful beams of light that produce hundreds or thousands of tiny burn spots (B) provide a relatively painless method for coagulating abnormal vessels and destroying diseased retinal tissue.

Cover: Stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center, issued May 17, 1984 in New York by the United States Postal Service.

"Biological sciences stand on
the brink of understanding
that I can only liken to the
brink that Einstein saw for
physics in 1905."

Dr. George A. Keyworth
Science Adviser to the
President, testifying before the
Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives, February 5,

1985.

The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding

United by their concern for the vitality of the biomedical and behavioral research enterprise, a large and diverse group of organizations recommends that appropriations for health science be increased reasonably in the coming fiscal year. This document is an analysis of the President's FY 1986 budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) and a rationale for this group's substitute proposal.

Congress has demonstrated, through support of the NIH and ADAMHA, an acute understanding of the needs of research and the importance of a balanced research program. Today, because there is a direct causal relationship between the work done in the nation's research centers and better health care, and because the Congress has recognized the benefits of increased investment in research, there is a revolution in the biological and medical sciences that is leading to the prevention and cure of countless previously intractable conditions. The pace of progress has placed the United States at the forefront of biomedical and behavioral research.

In addition, the spinoffs of medical research are promising dramatic economic growth with concomitant benefit to the federal budget, the foreign trade balance, and the employment outlook. Biotechnology provides advances in human health, extraordinary possibilities for the industrial community, and the promise of reduced health care costs.