48 tems, is incapable of proceeding much beyond we time. If one talks to such surgeons as Dr. DeBaker, a front of the development of open-heart surger apparent that there is a certain proportion of pe arrest or cardiac arrythmia due to unknown cannot predict when this physiological occurrer is therefore in the position of having to be pres sudden surgical emergency which he cannot pre Surgeons believe that with suitable monitor physiological functions it will be possible in retr physiological changes that took place prior to NEED FOR BOTH IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE DEVELOPME Mr. FARNUM. Are you talking about outside side engineering experimentation in this field. you talking about stepping up in-house? Dr. SHANNON. I am talking about both. Mr. FARNUM. Would you differentiate between Dr. SHANNON. Right now-and Dr. Harris: length about this-what we have done is to pr house research exploiting the capability and surgical staff. This is being engineered in such to ongoing events through the real-time use of display information as it occurs. On the other hand, there are many things monitor which one cannot do at the present tim attempt to develop all of these within our own s are things that one can better do through contract a industry. I might say that many other surgeons require devices for specific chemical or physical measure tracting for these types of new devices we would simply to satisfy the needs of our own clinical cente the needs of a very rapidly growing professional As I say, the end result would be to collect info way that when an acute medical emergency are and determine what was the pattern of the pr changes. If consistent patterns emerge, it would them in subsequent cases. PATTERN RECOGNITION the same area are the problems of pattern recognition. actical one. At the present time, all women should have smears as a diagnostic aid for the early detection of However, if all women should suddenly decide to ars done, as they should be, on a 6-month basis, we the technicians to do it. In any case, this would be an expensive project. at it is possible through the use of some of the modern. ing, which comes from advances in television, to develop Il discard probably better than 95 percent of the normal only a small fraction to be viewed by a professionally These devices are not available. y concerned with this. In the early fifties we attempted such device, but, as it turned out at that time, techt advanced sufficiently to permit such an automated elief now is that it has. at comparable situation in the field of neurology is the ain cells in specific areas as a means of post mortem relate pathology to function and point the way to is quite likely that certain types of sophisticated scanin indeed do density cell counts in specialized areas and pletely different type of information about the diseased ared to the normal brain, and relate this to changes in . Is this a shift in emphasis on model building and on, build on the outside and experiment in-lab? Doctor N. I don't think so. I think it is really an extension ities of biologists, who in the past have attempted to do S for themselves, by making available adequate funds n get the help of very sophisticated engineers to do that very well. You still intend to maintain emphasis on in-house and experimentation as well as the larger configuraN. That is correct; yes, sir. On being done on the outside? pecta Surements ve measur time are possible equate time have to the operating ring development on to something we talked to you about last year, Mr. versities and colleges. Because most NSF research grants go to institutions of higher education, increasing its research funds provides a quite direct way of assuring greater support for academic research. Annual increases are necessary to keep pace with the growth of the academic scientific base and with the increasing costs of doing research. Enrollment and faculty size have been increasing and will continue to do so for a number of years; birth rate and educational statistics leave no room for doubt on this point. Thus the number of faculty members and advanced students qualified and eager to carry out research studies will continue to increase. Moreover, research costs go up. Instruments necessary for work at the advancing frontiers become more expensive as they become more powerful. Each time a major new laboratory, observatory, research vessel, accelerator, or other research facility is constructed there is a lasting commitment to support the research for which it was designed. These built-in cost increases could be avoided only by reducing the amount of research done elsewhere. The most important meaning of these decisions is that they constitute a step toward the solution of a policy issue. The primary, immediate objective of most of the Federal agencies has been-and will continue to be the accomplishment of their own missions rather than the welfare of the universities. But while this point has been clear, Government officials have been bedeviled by the knowledge that they should be giving more attention to the long-range growth and welfare of the universities upon which the Government depends for much research. These new budgetary decisions express the conviction that it is necessary "to maintain an adequate rate of growth in Federal support for research in colleges and universities." NET BUDGET INCREASE FOR NIH Mr. FOGARTY. Dr. Shannon, in your statement you identified the overall increase in the NIH budget as $93,500,000 or 8.2 percent. Other figures before me show the increase to be $58,500,000 or 4.7 percent. What is the difference between those two figures? Dr. SHANNON. The $93 million figure relates to the operating programs separated from research facilities construction. The $58.5 million is the figure that relates to the overall budget including construction. The construction budget was cut by $35 million compared to last year, and that is the difference between the $93.5 million and the $58.5 million. The operating budget has been increased by $93.5 million but the research facilities construction budget has been decreased by $35 million, leaving a net overall increase of $58.5 million. REDUCTION IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES Mr. FOGARTY. That $35 million reduction, what kind of construction would that be? Dr. SHANNON. Primarily research facilities construction all the way from animal facilities to clinical laboratories. Mr. FOGARTY. I cannot understand that. We were asked last year to double the authorization and now you come in and cut it by 70 percent for next year. Dr. SHANNON. It was the judgment of the Bureau of the Budget that construction programs constitute an inflationary element and the budget was, therefore, reduced. Mr. FOGARTY. That was the same argument advanced in Truman's administration during the Korean conflict and some committee made an analysis and came up with the conclusion that the 2 or 3 years' delay set back research about 10 years. Dr. SHANNON. The decision by the Bureau of the Budget was that, within the limitations imposed on them, construction should be favored that related to the production of manpower rather than to the conduct of research. I would point out that in short range this has little effect. This will have an effect 2 or 3 years from now because it takes 2 or 3 years to construct and prepare research facilities, in the same way that it takes 2 or 3 years to construct and prepare educational facilities. Mr. FOGARTY. Prepare a statement on how this will retard research if we cut back on these facilities. (The information requested follows:) In the spring of 1965, in preparing for presentation to the Congress a request to extend the authority of title VII A (the health research facilities amendments) of the Public Health Service Act, the NIH undertook an analysis of the variables important in the long-range prediction of health research facility needs. In the course of this study, data were collected on such subjects as: the size and condition of the existing health research facilities plant; its rate of obsolescence and the consequent frequency with which renovation or replacement was required; the sources of potential research manpower-the colleges and universities of the Nation; the present and anticipated enrollments in those institutions; the trends affecting enrollment, career choice of field of science, attrition, and similar factors; and the amount and complexity of the resource backup, such as computers and animal quarters, needed. From such data, coupled with reasonable assumptions related to the growth of the national research and development effort in general, and its biomedical component in particular, projections were derived for each year through 1975 of the numbers of scientists expected to complete training, and of the research space requirements. Whenever a choice was possible between alternative assumptions, a conservative option, yielding a smaller requirement for expenditures, was selected. Thus, future needs may have been substantially understated; they are certainly not overestimated. This analysis yielded the prediction that, to meet the total national need for health research facilities in 1970, an investment of $335 million would be required in fiscal year 1967. The elements making up this requirement were as follows: $242 million to provide 3.73 million net square feet of research space for the 9,200 new biomedical research workers now in training and in need of working space by 1970; $62 million to renovate 1.38 million net square feet of existing research space, on the assumption that modernization is required, on the average, every 17 years; and $31 million to replace 0.475 million net square feet of obsolete space, on the assumption that facilities more than 50 years of age are, on the average, beyond redemption. The past experience of the National Institutes of Health may be used as an index to predict the sources from which the $335 million requirement could be met. For the last several years, private and non-Federal public sources have made an annual contribution of about $45 million to the erection of new health research facilities built without any Federal participation. If the remaining $290 million were to be composed of the usual mix of joint participation by Federal and non-Federal sources, a Federal expenditure of $118 million could be expected to stimulate a non-Federal contribution of $172 million in matching funds. Viewed from the past experience of the NIH, the $15 million appropriation recommended for fiscal year 1967 would result in a total investment of $83 million, made up of contributions of $45 million in unmatched, and $23 million in matching, non-Federal funds. By 1970, these expenditures would have been converted into about 1.3 million net square feet of new research space, available for allocation among the then existing total requirements (5.58 million net square feet, equivalent to an expenditure of $335 million) for: replacement of obsolete space; renovation of outmoded space; and erection of new facilities for the 9,200 newly matured scientists. Expenditures for health research facilities construction at the level of $15 million will have other immediate consequences that should be mentioned. Under present guidelines, the funds available in fiscal year 1966, coupled with those proposed for fiscal year 1967, might fund as few as 6 and will permit award of no more than 15-20 of the 150 applications expected to have been approved by the close of the March 1967 meeting of the National Advisory Council on Health Research Facilities. The impact will be felt on schedules for con struction, for recruitment of faculty, for expansion of pre- and post-doctoral training programs, and for expansion of commitments to project research. In some instances, non-Federal funds, made available for matching over a limited period of time, may become unavailable or be redeployed for the construction of facilities to be used for purposes other than health research. DISTRIBUTION OF INCREASE BETWEEN NEW AND OPERATING PROGRAMS PROGRAMS Mr. FOGARTY. If the increase in NIH operating programs is $93.5 million, how is that distributed between new and continuing programs? Dr. SHANNON. The new programs are the regional medical programs and mental health staffing. The increases in those programs are $34 million. The continuing operating programs have a net increase of $59 million. If one subtracts the commitments for established activities, I think that the amount for new work would be between $25 and $35 million. I don't have the precise figures; I can furnish them for the record. (The information requested follows:) Distribution of 1967 increases in NIH operating appropriations Appropriation: General research and services, NIH. National Institute of General Medical Sciences_. Biologics standards__. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development_ National Cancer Institute__ National Institute of Mental Health_ National Heart Institute__ National Institute of Dental Research___ National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases_. Total increase_- Increase $7.354,000 9.989,000 1,099,000 5, 528, 000 251,000 20, 465,000 7,845,000 1.207,000 6, 708, 000 7,716,000 5,274,000 20.024, 000 93, 460,000 Within the above figures the following new programs were actually initiated on a limited basis in 1966 but move fully into operation in 1967. Activity: United States-Japan cooperative medical science program. Mental health staffing grants_ Increase (in millions) $2 19 15 36 Total---- For the most part, the remainder of the increase (approximately $57.5 million) will support continuation and some expansion of older programs, both extramural and intramural. Included in this, of course, will be some wholly new research grants, fellowships, and training grants, as well as new elements within the overall intramural research program. RESEARCH GRANTS Mr. FOGARTY. What does this budget provide for research grants. and what is the increase in 1967 over 1966? Dr. SHANNON. For research grants, $602,596,000 was provided in 1966. In 1967 there is $634,826,000, or an increase of $32 million. That is the figure I was searching for earlier. Mr. FOGARTY. That is research grants? |