FY 2017 Budget Process Underway

President Obama submitted his budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to congress at the beginning of the month, proposing funding levels for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to accommodate a nearly $1 billion increase in mandatory spending to fund special projects like the BRAIN, Precision Medicine, and Cancer Moonshot initiatives. If this budget is accepted, NIH Institutes and Centers that are not involved in these projects will not see any funding increase above the FY 2016 levels. Research advocates are concerned that this would lead to a decline in success rates in those centers as the number of grant proposals continues to increase. NIH Director Francis Collins shared his optimistic outlook on the proposal with The Wall Street Journal. The budget also includes a 6.7% increase in funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as an increase for the US Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), reported here last month.

The mandatory spending proposals for NIH and AFRI are not likely to be adopted by Congress. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), stated that mandatory funding “diminishes fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight.”

In the House, members of the Appropriations Committee released a call for Representatives to submit programmatic requests to the Committee. These requests assist the Committee in determining what agencies are of most importance to House members and their constituents. You can encourage your representative to support the NSF and the NIH by responding to this e-action alert.

It is still relatively early in the Federal budget process (see graphic below); stay tuned for updates on how budget proposals might impact scientific research funding.

Photo Credit: The National Priorities Prioject

Next Generation Researchers Act

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee unanimously approved the Next Generation Researchers Act, submitted by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). In an guest column in the Wisconsin State Journal, Senator Baldwin describes the bill as a means to “build opportunities for new researchers, help address the debt burden that young scientists face today, and invest in the future of research, science and innovation.” The legislation establishes a “Next Generation Researchers Initiative” to be housed in the Office of the Director at the NIH. This initiative would be tasked with developing or modifying policies within NIH to:

• Enhance training opportunities for research-related career options;
• Strengthen mentorship between new and veteran researchers;
• Enhance workforce diversity efforts;
• Improve new researchers’ success in obtaining renewal funding; and
• Coordinate with agencies and academic institutions to improve tracking of trainees and their career progress.

In addition to the creation of the Next Generation Researchers Initiative, the bill asks that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a comprehensive study on policies impacting the next generation of researchers in the United States, culminating with a report to be presented to Congress within 5 years of the law’s enactment. The bill specifically asks the study to address administrative, cultural and legal barriers to research careers, evaluate the impact of sequestration on the next generation of researchers, and provide recommendations to improve entry to and sustain careers in research for the next generation.

If passed, this legislation would align nicely with NIH’s agency-wide strategic plan, which called for improved data collection, training, and workforce diversity efforts.

GBSI BioPolicy Summit 2016

This month the Global Biopolicy Standards Institute (GBSI) hosted its 2016 BioPolicy Summit, “Research Reproducibility: Innovative Solutions to Drive Quality.” At this convening of researchers, administrators, journal editors, and scientific societies, former GSA President Judith Kimble (University of Wisconsin) used her keynote address to point to the hyper-competitive research environment caused by insufficient research funding as the underlying explanation for some of the reproducibility challenges that science is facing. To lower the amount of competition, Kimble highlighted the need to reduce the number of researchers, as funding increases for research are not sustainable for the long term. She also called for a shift from an expectation of clinical relevance to the importance of the research question and noted that many innovative ideas are never proposed for fear of not being funded. Kimble ended her talk with current progress in research reproducibility, citing GBSI’s Reproducibility 2020 report, efforts to share research results early through mechanisms such as bioRχiv, and a request for applications to train graduate students in good laboratory practices from NIH.

Especially for geneticists

The coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology products (think GMOs) is being updated in a joint effort between the Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The next public meetings, planned for March 9, 2016, at EPA’s Region 6 office at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas and March 30 at the University of California, Davis. Each public meeting will offer an opportunity for comments from the public.

Following the much appreciated budget increases for scientific agencies in December, science and health advocates alike were ecstatic at the mention of a “cancer moonshot” in President Obama’s final State of the Union Address to the House of Representatives. It is reported that the White House  plans to request $755 million for cancer research funding as a part of the larger, $1 billion ask to fund the entire initiative in fiscal year (FY) 2017. Where those funds will go remains to be seen, however the first meeting of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, with Vice President Biden at the helm, took place this week with 13 agencies represented—including the NSF and NIH. It seems likely that the National Cancer Institute will be the largest recipient of any such budget increase at the NIH, and it was the only Institute within an agency explicitly named as a task force member.

NIGMS Council

Speaking of NIH, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) held an Advisory Council Meeting last week, where innovative funding and data took center stage. Director Jon Lorsch, reported the progress of the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) Pilot. MIRA was launched to provide a stable funding source for an investigator’s entire research program, rather than a per project basis. An analysis of the initial MIRA applicant pool suggested that approximately 25% of those eligible to apply in this first round submitted a MIRA proposal, and the applicant pool was similarly diverse in gender and race/ethnicity, as compared with the pool. Lorsch suggested that NIGMS would be issuing new funding opportunity announcements for MIRA in the near future with the expectation that the program would be available to all NIGMS investigators within the next year or so.

As part of the omnibus appropriations bills for FY 2016, NIGMS is receiving nearly 6% in additional funding over the previous year. To ensure that this additional support does not cause a one-year peak in funding that cannot be sustained, NIGMS is proposing to fund several short-term priorities in addition to bolstering multi-year R01s and the like; for example, the institute may provide equipment supplements or offer 1–2 awards to help promising but risky applications collect preliminary data.

Assessments of the National Centers for Systems Biology, NIGMS MERIT, and Program Project Awards were presented to the council. No decision was made, but there could be some changes on the horizon as some existing mechanisms may be eclipsed by new funding mechanisms that are currently in the pilot phase.

The council approved a pilot for a new technology development funding mechanism, which separates technology development into early and late phases. The early phase mechanism is a two year, $250,000 investment that is intended to be high risk, requiring no preliminary data or need to apply the technique to a biological question. The late phase mechanism would be a 3–5 year award with no budget cap, where preliminary data exists with functioning prototypes available for the first biomedical application. These funding solutions come after the NIGMS requested input from the scientific community on how it should consider “the biomedical technology research and development space at all stages, from exploratory to mature.” GSA responded to this request, stating that “NIGMS is in a strong position to provide leadership in this area because it already supports a diverse array of foundational work across many disciplines. This institute should therefore invest sufficient resources in technology development to ensure that this critical field continues to thrive.” We expect this new program to provide the support necessary to move far-reaching technology ideas to tangible tools for basic research.

Science & Engineering Indicators

Last month at the National Science Foundation, the National Science Board released the 2016 volume of its Science and Engineering Indicators report. This sweeping data set, presented to Congress covers science education, workforce, and public attitudes on scientific issues. Notably, the study found that only 28% of Americans think that scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified crops; 37% think they are safe to eat. On a positive note, the GSA community should be pleased to know that strong public support for basic research funding remains steady at more than 75% (see Figure 7-14), and the percentage of people who agree that the government spends too little for scientific research continues to increase (see Figure 7-15). The full report can be found here.

Request for agriculture research funding

Providing a preview of President Obama’s proposed budget for FY 2017, set to be unveiled next week, the US Department of Agriculture announced that the President will request $700 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grants program. This would double the program’s current funding level of $350 million. AFRI supports projects at universities and research institutes that address food safety and quality, nutrients in plants, plant growth, and antimicrobial resistance strategies. In a move toward stable funding for agricultural research, the budget includes a legislative proposal that $325 million of the total request be considered mandatory funding. This could make AFRI, which began seven years ago, a permanent funding source to support a sustained research effort to improve agriculture, food, the environment and communities.

Especially for geneticists

The gene editing conversation continues with commentary posted here and here. The National Academies of Sciences and Medicine continue their consensus study on the scientific, medical and ethical considerations of human gene editing, holding a public meeting on February 11, 2016. GSA plans to attend.

The coordinated framework  for the regulation of biotechnology products (think GMOs) is being updated in a joint effort between the Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Public meetings are planned for March 9 in Dallas and March 30 at the University of California, Davis.

Early this morning, the U.S. House of Representatives released the text of the fiscal year (FY) 2016 omnibus appropriations bill, which would fund the federal government through the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2016.

The bill includes increases for all of the science agencies of interest to the GSA community:

• National Institutes of Health
  +$2 billion to $32 billion (↑ 6.6%)
  • NCI:  +$284 million to $3.11 billion (↑ 5.8%)
  • NHGRI:  +$21 million to $519 million (↑ 4.2%)
  • NHLBI:  +$128 million to $3.12 billion (↑ 4.3%)
  • NIA:  +$429 million to $1.60 billion (↑ 36.7%)
  • NIAID:  +$207 million to $4.63 billion (↑ 4.7%)
  • NIDDK:  −$75 million to $1.82 billion (↓ 3.9%)
  • NIGMS:  +$143 million to $2.51 billion (↑ 6.0%)
  • NINDS:  +$88 million to $1.70 billion (↑ 5.5%)
  • Office of the Director:  +$107 million to $1.56 billion (↑ 7.3%)

• National Science Foundation
  +$119 million to $7.46 billion (↑ 1.6%)
  • Research & Related Activities
    +$100 million to $6.03 billion (↑ 1.7%)
  • Education & Human Resources
    +$14 million to $880 million (↑ 1.6%)
  • Major Research Equipment & Facilities
    −$0.5 million to $200 million (↓ 0.2%)

• Department of Agriculture
  • Agriculture & Food Research Initiative
    +$25 million to $350 million (↑ 7.7%)
  • Agricultural Research Service
    +$10 million to $1.14 billion (↑ 0.9%)

• Department of Energy Office of Science
  +$279 million to $5.35 billion (↑ 5.5%)
  • Biological & Environmental Research
    +$17 million to $609 million (↑ 2.9%)

In addition to higher funding levels, the omnibus does not include most of the policy riders that caused the most concern among many in the research community.

The House is expected to vote on the omnibus on Thursday, December 17, which will then be taken up by the Senate. President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

FASEB has issued an e-action alert urging individuals to contact their Representative and Senators to ask them to vote yes on the omnibus appropriations bill. We hope you will contact your elected officials TODAY.

Because the current Continuing Resolution expires today, the House and Senate are expected to pass another short-term temporary funding agreement, extending funding through December 22. This would provide time for the omnibus bill to be passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Thank you to FASEB and CLS for their help in compiling information for this post.

Update (December 18): The House approved the omnibus appropriations bill on a vote of 316-113. One hundred fifty Republicans and 166 Democrats supported the bill, while 95 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted no.

Update 2 (December 18): The Senate followed the House in approving the bill with a 65-33 vote. It now goes to President Obama, who is expected the sign the bill in the coming days.

This post may be updated with additional details. Please check back later for any updates.

On the evening of October 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the budget deal negotiated by the current Congressional leadership and President Obama. The bill passed the House on a vote of 266-167, with 79 Republicans—including all members of the Republican House leadership—joining all 187 voting Democrats in supporting the deal.

The legislation now moves on to the Senate, which is expected to pass the bill as soon as tomorrow. The White has issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” expressing support for the bill, indicating the President is likely to sign it.

The bill would provide two years of release from sequestration for both defense and non-defense priorities by lifting the spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Overall discretionary spending would increase from its current level of $1.017 trillion to $1.067 in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and $1.070 trillion in FY 2017.

It also extends the debt ceiling through March 5, 2017, which would otherwise have been reached the first week of November.

Please note that the budget deal is for federal spending as a whole and does not address funding for individual agencies and programs. Appropriations discussions are ongoing with the hope that Congress will complete allocations for FY 2016 before the current Continuing Resolution expires on December 11.

However, there are reasons for optimism. Several Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have indicated their support for increasing the budgets of NIH and NSF if caps are lifted. Indeed, both the House and Senate proposed an increase in NIH funding ($1 billion in the House, $2 billion in the Senate) earlier this year.

UPDATE: At 3:12 am on Friday, October 30, the Senate passed the bill to send it on to President Obama. The vote was 64-35, with 18 Republicans joining all voting Democrats in support of the bill.

UPDATE: As expected, President Obama signed the legislation on November 2, 2015.

Related on Genes to Genomes:

• “Urging Congress to pass spending bills with increases for research,” October 17, 2015

On Wednesday afternoon, just before the end of fiscal year 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a short-term spending bill on a vote of 277-151. Earlier in the day, the Senate passed the bill on a 78-20 vote. Without this agreement, the U.S. government would have shut-down as the new fiscal year begins on October 1.

Ninety-one Republicans joined with 186 Democrats to pass the House bill; 151 Republicans opposed the funding extension.

The continuing resolution (CR) doesn’t put an end to the concerns, however, as it only extends funding through December 11.

The directors of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) have distributed their annual memorandum on science and technology priorities for the fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget focusing on efforts that span multiple agencies. The memo to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies is used to help align agency efforts as they formulate budget submissions to OMB. Requests consistent with these elements in the memo “are more more likely to be prioritized in FY 2017 Budget deliberations.”

The memo from OMB Director Shaun Donovan and OSTP Director John Holdren highlights federal government funding for basic research, which is describes as “the fundamental, curiosity-driven inquiry that is a hallmark of the American research enterprise and a powerful driver of new technology.”

One multi-agency R&D priority focuses on the life sciences:

Innovation in life sciences, biology, and neuroscience. Agencies should give priority to programs that support fundamental biological discovery research that could generate unexpected, high-impact scientific and technological advances in health, energy, and food security, particularly in the President’s BRAIN Initiative, the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistance, and the National Strategy for Biosurveillance (e.g., infectious-disease forecasting capabilities). Priority should also be placed on research that seeks fundamental principles that cut across habitats and biological systems, such as those that govern the behaviors of microbiomes in diverse environments. Agencies should prioritize research – guided by the National Research Action Plan for Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families – to identify and develop effective diagnostic and treatment methodologies and metrics with the aim of improved mental health and reduction in substance-use disorders. In addition, the Administration has committed to launching the Precision Medicine Initiative, aimed at tailoring medical care to the individual patient. Agencies should support investments on improving interoperability of health records, addressing privacy concerns, and launching research that will enable discoveries derived from Big Data.

Other priorities areas highlighted in the memo relate to global climate change, clean energy, Earth observations, advanced manufacturing and industries of the future, national and homeland security, information technology and high-performance computing, ocean and arctic issues, and R&D for informed policy-making and management.

Several other provisions may be of particular interest to the GSA community:

Agencies should support the R&D infrastructure (e.g., facilities, platform technologies, IT, digital tools) needed to ensure that U.S. science and engineering remain at the leading edge, and leverage resources from other agencies, state and local governments, the private sector, and international partners.

…agencies should describe the targeted outcomes of R&D programs using meaningful, measurable, and quantitative metrics where possible and describe how they plan to evaluate the success of those programs.

Agencies are encouraged to use approaches to foster innovation such as Grand Challenges, incentive prizes, citizen science, and collaboration with members of the Maker Movement.

Preserving and improving access to scientific collections, research data, other results of Federally-funded research, open datasets, and open educational resources should be a priority for agencies.

Following engagement with stakeholders, agencies should implement policies and prioritize activities to improve the reproducibility of research in the fields they support.

Agencies should give priority to policies and actions identified by research as having the greatest potential to increase inclusion and diversity in STEM education, research, and careers such as changes in STEM instruction; changing the image of STEM education and careers; and reducing explicit, implicit, and structural biases against girls, and members of underrepresented minority groups.

Additional Information:

• Shaun Donovan and Dr. John P. Holdren, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Multi-Agency Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2017 Budget,” July 9, 2015 (M-15-16).