Kansas University researcher Kristi Neufeld rarely writes letters to politicians. But this time, she felt she had to.

“Without sustained, solid federal funding for cancer research, this progress will stop, new therapies won’t be developed, and many lives will be lost that could have been saved,” Neufeld wrote in a recent letter to U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun, a Lawrence Republican.

Neufeld, KU associate professor of molecular biosciences, and many of her colleagues say budget constraints at the National Institutes of Health – the largest single source of research funds in the U.S. – are hampering research progress and delaying advances and possible discoveries that could help save lives.

“You never know what’s not going to be discovered if you don’t fund the basic research,” said Matthew Buechner, KU associate professor of molecular biosciences.

Budget

NIH’s budget doubled from 1998 to 2003 but has since remained relatively level. Last year saw the first decline in the agency’s budget in years.

During the up times, the success rate for applicants hovered near 30 percent, but it’s estimated now that roughly one in five grant applications get funding, said Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

KU ranked 87th among 500 institutions and agencies for the amount of NIH funding, $65 million, it received in 2005.

Some Kansas University researchers are frustrated by reduced levels of federal support for the National Institutes of Health. Xiangyan Tong, a KU graduate student from Beijing, China, prepares worms for the freezer in Haworth Hall. Tong conducted lab work on worms, which are used in the study of genetics.

According to KU, the university’s researchers submitted 89 new proposals to NIH in 2005 with a success rate of 24 percent. That was lower than the 28 percent success rate for new proposals to the National Science Foundation, KU reported.

Some point to the Bush administration and say its priorities are skewed.

“The money we spend in one day in Iraq would do amazing things for NIH,” said Paul Cheney, professor and chairman of molecular and integrative physiology at KU’s School of Medicine.

The Bush administration is backing the American Competitiveness Initiative, a proposal aimed at sustaining the nation’s global economic competitiveness by boosting funds to the National Science Foundation, the Energy Department and the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Koizumi said compared with NIH funding, NSF grants traditionally have been tougher to receive. The approval rate for NSF grants has been “fairly stable” around 20 percent, he said.

“The difference is their success rate has been pretty low for a long time now,” he said of the NSF grants. “They’re used to it.”

Robert Hanzlik, a medicinal chemistry professor and KU faculty member for more than 30 years, downplayed some of the concern about declining NIH funding.

He said NIH’s budget, which is more than $28 billion, is not small and though it is a challenging time, the program is not facing double-digit percentage cuts.

“I would say at least NIH funding has not fared as badly as it might under some administrations,” he said.

Michelle Schroeder, communications director for Jim Ryun, released a statement about Ryun’s support for biomedical research.

“Rep. Ryun supported doubling NIH funding from 1999 to 2003, when it grew at an average annual rate of 15 percent,” she said. “This year’s proposed budget would fund the NIH at $28.4 billion, including $1.9 billion for biodefense efforts – an increase of 6.2 percent. In addition, the NIH budget would provide $35 million for pandemic influenza research – an increase of $17 million.”

Making do

Buechner was using NIH support to study a protein connected to polycystic kidney disease. The research also was supported by the PKD Foundation.

But the five-year grant ended in 2004, and Buechner is applying to NIH for new funding.

Typically, KU researchers are paid for their summer work with their grant funding, he said. Buechner worked the summer months without the grant income, picking up work as an instructor on KU’s Edwards Campus. The staff that worked in his lab had to find jobs elsewhere.

Buechner said he believes his research will be funded again in rosier times. He continues to work on getting more papers published and conducting the necessary experiments.

“You just sort of have to sigh and try harder,” he said.

Kathy Suprenant, professor and chairwoman of molecular biosciences, said the lack of funding could stall careers.

“This will have catastrophic effects on promotion and tenure issues,” she said. “We have an expectation for promotion that our faculty will carry out quality research. Without funding, we can’t do that.”

And Neufeld said researchers are responding by pedaling faster, submitting grants earlier than normal and preparing to apply numerous times before snagging a grant.

She said the situation has added a new dimension to the grant submissions process.

“It’s not good enough to just have a great grant and be assured of getting funding,” she said. “There has to be some luck in there too.”