Accidental Blogger

For the second year in a row the American Cancer Society has reported a decline in the number of deaths due to cancer. 2003 was the first year on record for which an overall decrease in cancer death was reported. The data for 2004 is similarly positive and it may bode well for the future. The decline was observed for most common forms of cancer in men and women – lung, breast, prostrate and colo-rectal. The boost in survival rates has been attributed to early screening and diagnosis, better cancer awareness and life style choices, improved research and treatment.   

Whenever there is good news on scientific, medical or technological fronts with promises of improvement in the human condition, politicians like to horn in and share credit for the development.  Sometimes the credit is justified, sometimes it is self aggrandizement and occasionally it is a lie.  On the heels of the latest positive news about cancer death, George W. Bush lost no time to bask in reflected glory ascribing it to improved funding for cancer research. Bush made the following remark:

"These are tangible results as a result of the research that takes place around the country,” said President George W. Bush, attending a roundtable discussion with cancer experts at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. "We’re spending about $28.6 billion here at the NIH, which was doubled from 15 years ago."

Very noble, if that was indeed the whole truth!

There is no doubt that success in scientific / medical research is to a large degree proportional  to governmental funding. There is also no denying that a huge increase in funding for cancer research in the last decade had a vital role to play in bringing about breakthroughs in cancer cure. But the little detail that Bush did not divulge is that all increases in research funding were approved by Bill Clinton. During the first few years of the Bush administration, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its branch, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) continued to receive funding at a higher level as guaranteed by the Clinton budget which was still in place. When the budget came up for renewal under Bush, the NIH saw its first funding cut in thirty six years. Under the stewardship of this ignorant, anti-education, war mongering administration, funding for all  non-defense related medical research (cancer research included) has been slashed. In fact, the NCI has seen the largest decrease in funding among all the branches of the NIH. In effect, money for research in Bio-Defense (bio weapons?) has gone up under Bush but support for disease, cure and health related research has been reduced.  Despite Bush’s boastful words, this is the first time since the 1970s that the NIH has seen a cut in its budget. Of course Bush didn’t tell us that.  Just ask the scientists – the very same NIH experts in whose presence Bush made his misleading and self serving statement.

In February, President Bush issued his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007. The $2.77 trillion spending plan included $28.6 billion for the National Institute of Health (NIH), the same as it received the previous year. After adjusting for medical inflation, which is higher than general inflation at 3.5 percent, the NIH will actually receive about one billion dollars less than the prior year. Eighteen of the nineteen institutes under NIH are also slated to have funding cuts with the largest cut to National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds. The proposed budget designates $4.75 billion for NCI which is a $39.7 million decrease from 2006 funding and $71 million less than 2005.

One of the goals of President Bush’s Administration is to eliminate cancer death and suffering by 2015. The NIH had experienced tremendous growth, doubling its budget between 1998 and 2003. Last year NIH received its first budget cut since the 1970’s. With budget reductions, NCI will be forced to make difficult choices in cutting projects and will have to again look for other funding opportunities.

More details here.