Skip to main content
Other Publishers logoLink to Other Publishers
letter
. 2016 Mar 25;351(6280):1405. doi: 10.1126/science.351.6280.1405-a

Basic science: Bedrock of progress

Francis S Collins 1,*, James M Anderson 2, Christopher P Austin 3, James F Battey 4, Linda S Birnbaum 5, Josephine P Briggs 6, Janine A Clayton 7, Bruce Cuthbert 8, Robert W Eisinger 9, Anthony S Fauci 10, John I Gallin 11, Gary H Gibbons 12, Roger I Glass 13, Michael M Gottesman 14, Patricia A Gray 15, Eric D Green 16, Franziska B Greider 17, Richard Hodes 18, Kathy L Hudson 1, Betsy Humphreys 19, Stephen I Katz 20, George F Koob 21, Walter J Koroshetz 22, Michael S Lauer 23, Jon R Lorsch 24, Douglas R Lowy 25, John J McGowan 26, David M Murray 27, Richard Nakamura 28, Andrea Norris 29, Eliseo J Perez-Stable 30, Roderic I Pettigrew 31, William T Riley 32, Griffin P Rodgers 33, Paul A Sieving 34, Martha J Somerman 35, Catherine Y Spong 36, Lawrence A Tabak 1, Nora D Volkow 37, Elizabeth L Wilder 38
PMCID: PMC5101936  PMID: 27013720

ALMOST 4 YEARS ago, one of us (F.S.C.) wrote an Editorial (1) affirming the continued importance of basic research to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mission. The Editorial emphasized that basic scientific discovery is the engine that powers the biomedical enterprise, and NIH continues to spend more than half its budget supporting basic research projects. This is critical, because the private sector generally funds projects that yield a more rapid return on investment.

graphic file with name pmid27013720f1.jpg

Despite these assurances, some members of the community believe that NIH’s interest in basic science is flagging. For example, investigators have told us that the requirement for a “Public Health Relevance” statement in every NIH research grant application suggests that every project must relate directly to a public health concern—that NIH places less value on projects that cannot be expected to yield an immediate public health benefit. This is simply not true. As we wrote in our Strategic Plan (2), we recognize that many of the most important medical advances trace back to basic research that had no explicit disease link. To address this concern, we have revised our application instructions (3) so that the Public Health Relevance statement reflects the NIH mission and our commitment to supporting a robust, diverse research portfolio, including the pursuit of basic biological knowledge.

We are particularly concerned that misperceptions about NIH’s priorities and interests may be causing investigators to submit fewer basic research applications. For example, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) noticed a gradual and significant decline in the number of basic grants awarded between 1997 and 2012 (4). This decrease in awards was not a consequence of peer review given that basic grant applications actually did substantially better in review than applied research proposals. Instead, the major driver of this decline was a decrease in the number of fundamental basic research applications submitted.

The taxpayer investment in NIH has yielded spectacular returns from basic science over the long term. These range from the discoveries of the low-density lipoprotein receptor (5) and the development of CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease (6, 7) to recent substantial advances in structural biology through cryo-electron microscopy (8). For this track record of success to continue, we must continue our vigorous support of the pursuit of fundamental knowledge. All of NIH’s senior leaders believe strongly that progress toward these goals occurs most rapidly when investigators pursue their passions, whether they lie in basic research or in applied, disease-focused studies. By supporting a broad portfolio of basic, translational, population, and clinical research, NIH will continue to lead the way toward a healthier future.

Footnotes

Edited by Jennifer Sills

REFERENCES

RESOURCES