ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON NIH REAUTHORIZATION

July 19, 2005


At a hearing held on July 19, Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health, was the only witness to testify before the Committee.  Overall, Zerhouni was supportive of the committee's initial legislation for reorganizing NIH, particularly attempts to increase coordination throughout the agency.  However, he repeatedly emphasized the need to take a measured approach to change.

Zerhouni's Testimony

Zerhouni stressed that while the NIH has been a very successful agency, biomedical science is constantly changing.  As science has evolved, NIH has grown in size and complexity.  One major change is that offices have been created to coordinate the agency's work.  Zerhouni supports the Committee's attempt to increase coordination throughout the agency by creating the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives within the Office of the Director of NIH, which will "act as the glue" between the 27 institutes and centers.  Also, he supports the idea of dividing the 27 institutes and centers into two categories, mission-specific and science-enabling.  He characterized the 15 institutes that would be mission-specific, as supporting research directed at a particular disease, organ or life stage; those that are science-enabling apply to all diseases, organs and life-stages.  Zerhouni believes this change will lead to greater coordination and the creation of a more functional organization.

The other major area of Zerhouni's testimony focused on funding for trans-NIH research.  He stressed the need for institutionalizing a mechanism for allocating a percentage of the total NIH budget for greater synergy between the institutes and centers with the proper oversight.  As the IOM suggested, Zerhouni advocates the creation of a common fund, which would allow trans-NIH to be developed and funded prospectively.  This research would not supplant or dictate the plans of individual institutes; however, without a prospective analysis of emerging scientific opportunities and shared funds, there is greater risk for NIH.

Statement from Chairman Barton

Chairman Barton was not present for most of the hearing, but did make a statement during the question and answer session.  He stated that this reauthorization is a high priority.  He stressed that it is his intention to collapse 27 line item appropriations to 4 as drafted, giving greater discretion to the Director.  Also, he highlighted the need for real authority for trans-NIH research as well as devoting real dollars to this research.

While Zerhouni supported the conceptual approach of reducing 27 line items to 4, he stressed the importance of working out the details to ensure the efficient management of a transparent process, which would still provide for institute-specific planning.  He was also concerned about the baseline for these appropriations and that the baseline be 100 percent of what the institutes and centers receive prior to the reauthorization.

Issues Raised During Questioning

  • Director's Transfer Authority:  Currently, the Director has the authority to transfer 1 percent of an institute's budget.  This authority is rarely used because research priorities are planned prospectively, but there is always a chance that something unforeseen may emerge.  Zerhouni believes that he and future directors should be authorized to transfer between 1 and 3 percent of agency budgets for emergent situations, as was recommended by the IOM.
  • The Common Fund:  The IOM suggested that 5 percent of the NIH budget be placed in the common fund.  These funds would be used on trans-NIH research; these projects would be time limited and would not be used to create new institutes or centers.
  • Reporting:  Creating a more streamlined and consistent approach to reporting is important for the agency and setting agency priorities.  According to Zerhouni, it will allow the agency to be more dynamic.
  • Preventing Duplicative Research:  Zerhouni believes that while the legislation gives the Director the authority to remove the funding for duplicative research, this should be done prospectively while setting priorities, not retrospectively.