 
|
|||||||||
              
|
U.S. generous to Pennsylvania medical schools Congressional clout, research reputations spur cash Tuesday, August 07, 2001 By Claude R. Marx, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Despite increased competition for federal research funds, Pennsylvania medical schools continue to be among the biggest recipients.
The caliber of its medical schools, combined with some assistance from well-placed members of Congress, have helped Pennsylvania receive a larger share of federal research funds than more populous states have.
The state's six medical schools received $947 million from the National Institutes of Health last year, more than Florida or Texas.
That was at a time when only 32 percent of grant applications to the NIH were accepted. By contrast, 35 percent of applications were funded 10 years ago and 40 percent received funds 20 years ago.
"It is a very rigorous system and sometimes good projects are not funded. It does not get easier to get money just because there may be more of it available," said Andrew Rudczynski, the University of Pennsylvania's executive director of research services.
Though the NIH's $20.3 billion annual budget is more than twice what it was in 1994, almost twice as many new organizations are seeking money.
The University of Pennsylvania Medical School received $270 million in federal funds last year, the second-largest amount in the country after Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, which received $305 million.
The University of Pennsylvania's grants include a five-year $5 million project to determine genetic tendencies for breast cancer and a $4 million grant for a project to find a cure for sleep disorders.
Federal funds account for 80 percent of the school's research funds. The national average is 75 percent, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges.
The state's other medical schools received NIH funds at these levels last year: University of Pittsburgh, $170 million; Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, $65 million; Penn State University, $37 million; Temple University in Philadelphia, $29 million; and MCP Hahnemann University in Philadelphia, $14 million.
The funds at Pitt are subsidizing a five-year, $14 million study that is examining ways to treat female lung cancer patients with gene therapy. At Penn State, a $5 million study is examining whether young people who snore face an increased risk of high blood pressure.
Unlike many other federal programs, the NIH budget approved by Congress contains only a few directed allocations.
About 99 percent of all federal medical research funds are distributed through a peer-review system.
Outside panels of scholars are brought in to review grant proposals and decide which projects should be funded.
Congress does more than just give NIH money: It helps set the research priorities of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the NIH.
When writing funding bills, the chairmen of the subcommittees that oversee the NIH budget list those areas that should be given special attention. The NIH generally follows the recommendations.
Until the GOP lost its majority status in the Senate in June, the man to see was Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who chaired the subcommittee that oversees federal health and education spending.
Specter, now the subcommittee's ranking Republican, never steered specific NIH funds to a Pennsylvania project. However, some of his priorities as chairman, such as finding cures for Alzheimer's disease, cancer and diabetes research, are areas where significant work is done in the state's schools.
"He was supportive of NIH funding increases but our relationship with him was distant. He knows what we are working on but was careful to distance himself from individual projects," said Gerald Litwack, vice dean for research at Thomas Jefferson University.
A lobbyist who helps schools get research funds said the influence of members such as Specter is more subtle.
"People who give grants know where their money comes from and they respond. It's not that bad programs get funded, but a good project from a chairman's state has a better chance than one from another state," he said.
Other members from Pennsylvania play a more direct role on behalf of individual funding requests.
Rep. John Murtha, No. 2 Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, often signs letters endorsing individual grant requests, as do the state's three other committee members.
"More weeks than not, I am signing something that promotes a research project. But often my big role is letting schools know what the priorities are and what funds they should apply for," said Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a member of the House subcommittee that oversees NIH's budget.
|
||||||||
