The Executive Board of the ABRF has recently initiated an effort to attempt to influence the level of instrumentation funding. An article concerning the state of this funding was published in the March 1993 ABRF Newsletter and we refer you to that article for background information. If you haven't already read it, we urge you to do so. We have also learned that we are not alone in this regard. At least three other organizations, The Association for Advanced Technology in the Biomedical Sciences, The Microscopy Society of America, and the Association of American Medical Colleges also have ongoing programs aimed at influencing instrumentation funding in general.
The following letter is a reprint of one that was sent to William H. Natcher (D-KY) who is the Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education. Similar letters have been sent to Tom Harkin, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee; Bernadine Healy, Director of the NIH; Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Leon Panetta, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and John Gibbons, Assistant to the President on Science and Technology.
March 26, 1993
The Honorable William H. Natcher Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Natcher:
As President of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF), I am writing to express the concerns of more than 500 scientists in 250 research core facilities that we are deeply concerned by the severe reduction in instrumentation funding in government sponsored programs.
Many recent strides in biomedical research in the United States have been in part due to the availability of state of the art research resource facilities. Virtually every major research university in this country has established multi-user facilities which serve large numbers of biomedical researchers by offering state of the art technologies that would not otherwise be available to the individual investigator. The heart of these facilities are modern sophisticated instruments, frequently obtained through such programs as the NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program. The availability of these facilities has played a significant role in allowing individual investigators to use their research funds more productively. Many core facilities in academic institutions often typically provide resources to over 100 or more NIH-funded investigators each. It is estimated that at least 50 % of all NIH funded research in the biomedical sciences relies to some extent on core facilities. Clearly, research dollars invested in centralized, shared instrumentation facilities are amplified enormously in regard to the number of investigators that they impact. Equally important is the fact that the highly trained personnel and instrumentation in core facilities have accelerated the pace of government funded research and permitted investigators to address important, previously intractable problems in biology. Without core facilities, the resources that they provide would not be available to the average investigator and the additional productivity brought about by stretching the research dollar by this mechanism would not be realized.
Funding for the acquisition and operation of shared instrumentation in critical technologies has not been adequately addressed in recent federal budgets. For example, the budget of the NIH Division of Research Resources Shared Instrumentation Grant program has been reduced 75deg.70 since fiscal year 1992 from what it was previously. Since instrumentation represents an important part of the infrastructure of NIH, we feel that anticipation of the essential role of instrumentation and expertise should be a basic tenet of any strategic plan for NIH. Instruments used in shared facilities have and will continue to provide vital resources supporting all areas of biomedical and biotechnology research. Indeed, support for this and similar programs represents an area where considerable overall monetary savings can be realized and at the same time increase the availability of expensive scientific instrumentation.
Research is becoming more technical, and the technologies and associated instruments that simply were not available only a few months or years ago are now basic tools. Increasing reliance on recent technical developments such as rapid, automated DNA sequencing and macromolecular mass spectrometry has to be planned for if the rate of advancement is to continue. Yet, research funds supporting instrumentation are not increasing or even being sustained at the level necessary to provide instruments and the expertise necessary for their operation. Since shared instrumentation programs leverage government funds, permitting research dollars to be used more efficiently, it is counterproductive to reduce these programs in the face of the astounding impact modern instrumentation can have on the progress of science and the health of the nation. If these programs are allowed to wither, the impact will reverberate throughout the nation and the potential for productivity of the individual research grant, which is the machine that drives the advancement of biomedical science in this country, will suffer an unnecessary handicap. Moreover, increasing support for instrumentation and shared instrument grant programs will also strengthen the United States instrumentation industry, still a major force in the world, and thereby create new jobs.
We of the ABRF, and those research scientists who rely on us, encourage you to strongly support the shared instrumentation philosophy to use this country's resources in the most productive manner, helping the United States maintain its lead in biomedical developments.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Grant
On behalf of the Executive Board and the Association Members
Return to the The ABRF Home Page