Biologists criticize NIH focus

Seven University molecular biology faculty members are among 750 scientists who signed an open letter sent Monday to the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), urging him to allocate more money to research on basic infectious diseases instead of biodefense.

The letter, cosigned by scientists at universities, hospitals and biotechnology companies across the countries, opposes recent fund reallocations from the study of common infectious diseases to biodefense research.

"The diversion of research funds from projects of high biodefense but low public-health importance represents a misdirection of NIH priorities and a crisis for NIH-supported microbiological research," the scientists wrote.

They also said the peer-review process — the traditionally accepted way of allocating resources — is "threatened by the unintended consequences of the 2001-02 decision by the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to prioritize research of high biodefense, but low public health significance."

The 400-word letter, addressed to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, will be published in the March 4 issue of Science magazine and is available on the magazine's website.

The researchers who signed the letter have all served on the NIH Microbial Physiology and Genetics and NIH Bacteriology and Mycology Initial Review Groups or have received grants from the Initial Review Groups.

Molecular biology professor Jeffry Stock was among the University faculty who signed the letter. He said the NIH's new funding policies are "not efficient" and "pull research funds away from. . . basic research on infections diseases."

Opinions on the right allocation of funding are dependent on "what you see as the relative danger between bioterror and infectious diseases," he said. "Most of us regard infectious diseases as more dangerous overall."

But influential military health officials have been successful in lobbying for increased funding for their scientific research.

The scientists cited a 2001-02 decision by the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to prioritize biodefense research over work in public health.

"It seems like there's been a dramatic shift in funding toward those pathogens [considered likely to be used in bioterror attacks] because the military has certain pressing concerns," he said.

"Even in our department, when there's suddenly a lot of money in another area and cuts in the area you're working in, people are going to shift to working on those issues," he added.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"Our hope is that the government will reconsider what it is doing," said molecular biology Thomas Silhavy, who signed the letter. "It is worth a try, but I'm not overly optimistic about our chances for success."

Increased bioterrorism funding "in itself is not necessarily bad," he said. But he is "not sure all of this money is being spent wisely."

He added, "For example, do we need or want very expensive high level containment facilities and people working with these dangerous organisms at locations all over the country?"

Molecular biology professors Bonnie Bassler, Lynn Enquist, Austin Newton and Virginia Zakian and researcher Peter Wolanin '94 also signed the petition.