Funding for biomedical research in the United States has declined.

Under President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget, a large number of federal science programs will receive significantly less funding than in 2016.
nearly 20% off the national health institute's budget compared with the previous fiscal year, while funding for nuclear weapons has increased significantly.
The White House has released its federal budget outline for fiscal 2018, which begins October 1, 2017, in which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was hit hard, with a budget of only $25.9 billion for fiscal 2018, down $5.8 billion, or 18 percent, from $31.7 billion in fiscal 2017.
the resulting series of changes is worrying.
the 27 agencies affiliated with the NIH or the restructuring budget report proposed restructuring the 27 agencies under the NIH, without providing further details other than a commitment to "rebalance federal support for research funding."
, but it is clear that it will cancel its Foggarty International Centre.
Washington Post reported that the center's budget proposal is $69.1 million to build partnerships between U.S. and other health research institutions.
, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, added: "We think the NIH is doing something outside of its core mission.
" NIH proposal is of deep concern to biomedical research advocates.
"NIH has long been a global leader in biomedical innovation, and the $5.8 billion cut is unacceptable to the scientific community that helps the United States remain competitive, and unacceptable to the American public," Benjamin Kerber, director of public affairs at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, said in a statement.
, chief executive of the National Brain Oncology Society. F. Arongs said he was disappointed that "the NIH budget has been cut, and it would be a huge loss if we gave up all what we had achieved and all that could be achieved."
S. epidemiological funding or intermittent cuts to potential spending at the NIH National Cancer Institute have raised concerns among scientists, particularly those conducting epidemiological research, who need years of funding to collect data without interruption.
Trump's proposal also includes creating a fund at the Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH's executive branch, to respond to public health emergencies such as the spread of the Zika virus.
Scientists and public health experts have indeed called for such a fund for years, but Keith Martin, executive director of the Alliance of Global Health Universities in Washington, D.C., argues that day-to-day basic research is more important because "after all, preventing a public health crisis is much cheaper than responding to an existing crisis."
S. American Society for Microbiology said in a statement: "NiH's funding cuts are unprecedented and will slow scientific discoveries of chronic and infectious diseases, and we hope to continue funding research to combat diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria."
" reduce project management fees to make up the difference?Analysts believe NIH's $5.8 billion budget cut could be made up by reducing the proportion of indirect costs that an anonymous source close to the Trump administration says are most affected by the budget report, Science reported.
so-called indirect costs refer to the university from the NIH application to the research funding, to pay for the management costs related to the projects it funds, such as the payment of property fees for the laboratory, the payment of salaries for employed staff, etc.
although the law provides for a ceiling on the proportion of indirect costs and funding for scientific research, the reality is that it is generally coordinated between universities and the Government.
, obtained in the journal Nature, the proportion of fees in universities ranges from 20 to 85 per cent;
2016, NIH paid $6.4 billion in indirect costs and $16.9 billion in direct costs for research projects, a 37.9 percent increase.
indirect costs have been controversial.
researchers say it reduces research funding and private foundations pay much lower administrative fees, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which limits the indirect costs paid to American universities to less than 10 percent.
but experts also say cutting indirect costs could face fierce opposition from universities because they believe they are essential to maintaining high-quality research facilities.
"This budget proposal will weaken innovation and economic growth in the United States and create an 'innovation deficit' as countries such as China continue to compete for greater investment in research and higher education," Mary Sue Coleman, president of the American University Association, said in a statement.
" in May this year, the full budget will be announced.
time, everything will be settled.
.