Martin Luther King, Jr. once said "We have guided missiles, but misguided men." This is the current state of the United States Congress when it comes to funding the National Institute of Health (NIH). We spend over half of a trillion dollars to protect ourselves from the extraordinary unlikelihood of a terrorist attack, but only $32 billion on biomedical research that can indefinitely save millions of lives. It's perplexing that we have been all the way to the moon and back but still have not the slightest idea of how to effectively treat diseases like cancer that ravage their way through our bodies. We are looking to protect ourselves from existential threats that are not nearly as great as they seem while every year more and more loved ones are lost to maladies that could be easily prevented through additional research. We need to go back to the understanding that some of the greatest scientific discoveries ever made came directly from increased government spending on research and development (R&D). We have to look at the thinking that was behind scientific undertakings such as the Manhattan Project or the Human Genome Project and harness that rational. It is imperative that we take these ideas from the past and apply them to our present day school of thought. The only way that a cure for cancer, or HIV/AIDS, or Alzheimer's will ever be found is if Congress is willing to give the money to the NIH that it deserves. Nearly every person in this country knows somebody who is or has been affected by one of the diseases that is studied by the NIH and that is why it is of utmost importance that the NIH's funding is doubled by Congress. 

The National Institute of Health is the world's leading institution in providing funds for biomedical and behavioral research. It funds an extraordinary range of projects investigating the mechanisms of "particular diseases, human health and development or more fundamental aspects of biomedical research," (Johnson 1). The NIH allocates funding for its own labs and research facilities around the nation as well as hundreds of thousands of non-federal scientists doing cutting edge research into finding cures, preventing, or better treating human illness. The NIH is primarily funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which is controlled by the United States Congress (Johnson 3). Congress designates the exact funding that the NIH receives each fiscal year (FY) and for FY2016, they have set aside $32.311 billion. This money, which may seem like it would be enough, makes up less than 0.5% of the total government budget (Collins 1). During FY2016, Congress recently allotted the NIH a $2 billion bump in spending and while this increase is enormous when it comes to funding more scientific research that will lead to discovery, the NIH is still far behind where they were not too long ago. Over the past decade, the NIH has lost much if not all of its purchasing power due to stagnant funding and inflation (Rockey and Collins). This is an outright atrocity because when the funding of scientific research falls not only do new, groundbreaking, discoveries occur less frequently but the economy suffers as well. Research performed by the US Senate has revealed that NIH funded research that has increased the longevity of Americans and this longevity has resulted in a "net 'value of live' gains to Americans of about $2.4 trillion every year" (Mack 5). This same report indicated that the payout of NIH investment is fifteen times that of which is invested by the federal government. Not only are lives saved that otherwise would have been lost, but the economic benefit of investing in the NIH is unbelievable. Not even Ponzi Schemes, notorious for abnormally high returns, would have dividends as considerable as investing in the NIH. It is for this reason that the United States Congress should vastly increase the funding of the National Institute of Health. 

At the turn of the 21st century, Congress agreed to double the funding of NIH over the course of five years. The NIH used these newly allotted resources to fund the Human Genome Project (HGP). The HGP was one of the single greatest feats of science in the history of mankind. This internationally coordinated effort aimed to sequence the entire genome of our species, Homo sapiens, and for the first time ever, we were able to "read nature's complete genetic blueprint for building a human being" (All About the Human Genome Project). This research has lead to a greater understanding of the genetic drivers of all diseases and has allowed for better treatments and cures of many ailments. Right now, as aforementioned, the NIH's static funding from Congress has led them to a place where its buying power is its lowest point since the 1990s (Kelly). The possibilities that could arise from once again doubling the funding of the NIH are endless and by endless, I mean a possible cure for cancer, or HIV/AIDS, or Alzheimer's, you name it!

The light hike in spending of $2 billion that the NIH received for FY2016 was an increase of about six percent of their current budget. This money, while seemingly insignificant in the overall government budget, will greatly enhance the research performed by the NIH. Specifically, these funds will go to studies such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) which will allow researchers to study thousands of patients over the course of 10 years (Kelly). The PMI will allow doctors to better treat patients and inform researchers to develop drugs that will target disease in a more individual basis. This extra funding will allow for the BRAIN Initiative as well. This study's goal is to greatly accelerate our working knowledge about how the human brain functions on a cellular level. These projects are huge undertakings and are going to be accomplished with just a minor elevation in spending. If this relatively miniscule amount of money is able to increase the longevity of millions of people around the world and increase our understanding of our brain, the most complex thing in the universe, imagine what doubling the federal appropriations to the NIH could accomplish. 

An argument often made against the allocation of greater funds to the National Institute of Health (NIH) is that these new government appropriations will only increase the federal deficit (> $19trillion). While this argument seems logical, it is merely a fallacy. Presently, the economy is burdened with the cost of illness which amounts to about $3 trillion per year, representing 31% of our nation's GDP (Mack 4). Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), a long-time proponent of increased funding of the NIH, has pointed out that for every one dollar that the NIH receives from the government, economic growth is spurred by $2.21 (NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING). Not only does this investment give huge returns that any banker on Wall Street would gawk at, investment in the NIH goes directly to increasing the longevity of Americans. A report by the US Senate indicated that this increased life span contributes $2.4 trillion annually back to the economy which further stimulates growth. This same report confirmed "if just 10 percent of the value of longevity increases ($240 billion) resulted from NIH-funded research, it indicates a payoff of about 15 times the annual NIH investment," (Mack 5). Just let that sink in. A return of fifteen times is unheard of in the investment world. If someone were to say that they invested their money in something and that they were receiving a yield that substantial, everyone would either dismiss it or say that he or she is getting scammed. Many other countries have taken notice of the astronomical economic success that the United States has garnered when the government invested in research and development and are currently trying to emulate our success. Now, countries such as China, Germany, and Japan are dramatically ramping up their government funding of scientific research. In comparison, the NIH has experienced a 25% decrease in buying power over the past decade due to the static nature of government allocations (Rockey and Francis). This dramatic decrease in buying power has led to less grant applications being funded and, therefore, less discovery. There should be no reason that the NIH's buying power has declined so sharply; other countries have begun reaping the economic benefits as well as increased longevity and it is about time that we follow suit. 

The National Institute of Health provides invaluable support to scientists and doctors trying to find cures for diseases that affect every person in this country in some way, shape or form. With so many people fighting for funding from the NIH, allocations are spread fairly thin across many of the most serious diseases. For instance, there are hundreds of variations of cancer being studied across the United States by tens of thousands of scientists and yet the NIH can only allocate $5.274 billion towards cancer research per year due to monetary restraints (Kingston 4). These financial constraints put on the NIH by the lack of funding by Congress has lead to a preposterous grant application success rate below 20% while, traditionally, the government has funded a third of grant proposals (Rockey and Collins) (Kristiansen). Thousands of young, potential, scientists and researchers have seen how ridiculously difficult it has become to obtain a grant from the NIH and this has lead to career uncertainty. With uncertainty at such high levels, many of these students are choosing different career paths or taking their abilities overseas. This migration of talent away from American laboratories will be devastating to scientific research in the United States. Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, has put it better than anyone else when he observed that, "if we lose scientists, they're not coming back when things get better," (Kristiansen).  These people, that would have brought new ideas and brilliant minds into a field where these two things are desperately needed, are leaving and we will not be able to get them back if Congress does not increase the NIH's budget. Scientific discovery thrives when there are new people, new ideas, and many of them. To see a perfect example of this all you have to do is look back at the Manhattan or Apollo projects. The Manhattan Project, which was one of the largest scientific undertakings in history, was able to develop a chain nuclear reaction which led to the nuclear bomb in a mere four years, a feat thought wouldn't be accomplished for another century. The Apollo project was able to put a man on the moon in just six. When great minds are able to come together, once unimaginable triumphs are able to become reality. These massive scientific operations are perfect examples as to why the lack of funding to the NIH is tragic; with less people comes less discovery and this is exactly why the allocations that the NIH receives need to be doubled immediately. 

While most people believe that the National Institute of Health (NIH) should receive funding from Congress, there are also many people that find this option infeasible. Those whom are opposed to adding new funding to the NIH argue that this money needs to go to defense spending in order to keep our nation safe against terrorists and other external threats. President Obama has proposed a $582.7 billion budget for defense spending in his Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget. In this budget, he argued for a quadrupling of our military expenditures in Europe to $3.4 billion to prevent Russian aggression against our NATO allies that have large ethnically Russian populations (Boyer). This extra spending would allow for "continuous U.S. armored brigade rotations" to show our NATO allies that we have their back (Boyer). The ludicrous idea that the United States needs to send troops to eastern Europe to prevent Russian aggression is absolutely absurd. First of all, if this is just a move to show our allies that we have their back, Vladimir Putin will see right through it and continue with his advancements in this area. Secondly, we will never actually conduct a military action against Russia because that would start a world war. This idea that we need to send American men to go possibly fight a war that they have nothing to do with is the same idea that has had us stuck in Iraq for the past 13 years and what lead to the Korean and Vietnam wars. All of which were utter failures and disastrous policy decisions. So instead of increasing the American defense spending in Europe by $2.55 billion dollars, that money should go to the NIH so that researchers can find cures to diseases that actually affect Americans. As Representative Cohen has said, "the likelihood of any one of us dying from a terrorist attack or from some weapon fired from North Korea or Russia or Iran is very slim, but the odds of us suffering from the disease [that the NIH studies]  ...  is likely in our loved ones," (National Institutes of Health Funding). Due to this fact, it is evident that the American people would benefit far greater from increased funding of the NIH than an increase in military funding. 

Nine of the ten leading causes of death in the United States come from diseases that are researched by the NIH (Deaths and Mortality). The only cause of death not coming from a disease was unintentional accidents such as falling in the bathtub. Millions of mortalities come from these diseases every year, yet we continually disregard the NIH. The NIH's funding needs to be increased drastically because it is equally as important as funding our national defense. 

During this 2016 election cycle, you can see many of the candidates are preaching that the current threat from ISIS and other terroristic threats is imminent. But what this fear mongering fails to inform the public is that only 3,264 Americans have been killed by terrorism at home and abroad from 1995-2014 (American Deaths in Terrorist attacks). This number includes 2001 where 3003 people died in one day on 9/11. In 2014 alone, 1,779,754 people died from the top nine diseases studied by the NIH (Death and Mortality). The American people need to be less worried about ISIS and more worried about their health. That starts with these candidates needing to stop pushing war hawk agendas put in place by the military-industrial complex and begin focusing on issues that truly affect American citizens; that issue is their well-being. Sending troops to the Middle East has cost the US $4.4 trillion and after interest accrues on the loans that we took out for these wars, it will have cost us over $8 trillion. On top of that money, the US has spent over $170 billion on the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan (Baum). If the government can afford to rebuild these countries, then they can more than afford to provide greater funding for the NIH. Had only a fraction of this money been spent on the NIH, who knows how far ahead we would be when it comes to biomedical research. More important than the money, these wars have cost our country the lives of over 6,800 of the finest American men and women some of whom were undoubtedly aspiring doctors, scientists, and researchers (Baum). These candidates need to think about how they may be remembered president, whether that be that they invaded a Middle Eastern country and stuck our troops in a perpetual war, or the president that cancer was cured under. If a president heavily pushes for greater NIH funding, the facts show that new cures and treatments will be found by researchers, the economy will perform better, and people will live longer. It's time to usher in a new age of biomedical research and that begins with the President of the United States. 

The job of our government is to protect the people. This protection comes through the military to protect us from foreign powers and terrorists and through investment in the NIH to protect us against disease. Annually, we spend north of half of a trillion dollars on the military to protect us from a threat that is far less likely to kill anyone in this country than dying from a disease that the NIH researches such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, or any other ailment. When the United States refuses to lead in scientific discovery is when the rate of new discovery comes to a crawl. If we ever want to live to see a day where having cancer is the equivalent of coming down with the flu, or HIV/AIDS can be prevented with a shot, or the effects of Alzheimer's could be reversed by merely taking a pill, we need to begin seriously investing in the National Institute of Health. Now is the time to adequately fund our other department of defense, the NIH, because it is essential in protecting the one thing that Americans value over everything else, their health. The American people are tired of watching their family and friends die from these pernicious afflictions. Congress, do your job and double the Federal allotment to the NIH and protect the American people. 

