On Wednesday, March 19th, a group of researchers organized
by the Society for Neuroscience descended on Capitol Hill to let Congress know
how important it was to reverse the budget cuts inflicted by the sequester and
increase funding to the NIH and NSF. Biomedical research is important to the
long term health and prosperity of Americans, they said. It creates jobs. It
can spark innovative new business sectors. It contributes to the welfare of our
soldiers. It distinguishes us internationally. It alleviates the economic
burden of sad, costly and chronic health issues. In fact, it is the only hope
against increasingly recognized but painfully untreatable disorders like autism,
Alzheimer’s, MS and PTSD.

The researchers told all of these things to the bevy of
congressmen, senators and staffers who gave them audience, hoping to capture
the interest and concern of the policymakers in a blitz of meetings.

The overwhelming response from those policymakers?  “We know.”

Many of the researchers who went were young researchers who
looked into the future of competitive scientific funding and found the vision
uncomfortably stark. Others were senior researchers who were aware of the unprecedented
show of interest in neuroscience and biomedical research from politicians,
including the President. All of them were intrigued by the very cool new
technologies that are right on the cusp of propelling neuroscience to heights
that were previously implausible. Clearly, if there was any topic towards which
politicians might be especially amiable in these less-than-amiable political times,
it is the need for sustained American biomedical research. Right?

And as it turns out, Congress is strongly in favor of
biomedical research, and not just in the form of political lip service. It is
no exaggeration to say that every member of Congress—and probably all of their
staffers—has either been affected by a neurological disorder directly, or has a
family member or close friend who has been:  parents, children, relatives, not to mention large
blocks of voters.

Many different groups have come in to congressional offices
over the past few months to reinforce the need to our elected officials to keep
NIH and NSF funding up, including the NIH and NSF. The scientific societies and
non-profits have told them. The universities have told them. The private
biomedical companies have told them.

“We know, and we agree,” they say.

But if that’s true, why was the sequester allowed to
dramatically cut funding to biomedical research? Why has the NIH been barely
able to keep up with inflation at least the past five years? Why does there
seem to be such pessimism about the long term prospects for scientific funding
in the country, and such bemoaning of our investment of research compared to
other world powers?

Well, it so happened that the same day that the
neuroscientists were headed into congressional offices, many senators and congressmen
were somewhat preoccupied with a vote scheduled that afternoon, a continuing
resolution to keep the federal government open and operating. Needless to say,
the whole budget thing is a bit of a distraction on the Hill. And the President
was in Isreal, and there were immigration issues, and gun issues, and social
issues, and the concerns of all other victims of the shotgun-shelling of federal
discretionary spending, all clamoring for the attention of those in power.

So again, the answer to the question of whether or not
Congress recognizes the need to support biomedical research: “We know. We
agree. But man, these times are tough.”

It could be very easy to become cynical when given such a
response, but it is especially important for scientists to embrace that response
as an opportunity. With all the shuffling and voices and messiness, individual members
of Congress have one big task in front of them that could bring significant
positive results in favor of research. That task is prioritization.

As members of Congress look at their budget plans and try to
make sense of the madness, they have to sort out their priorities so that they
can get control. They have to prioritize to satisfy their constituents. They
have to prioritize to get the important things done. And when each of them
faces re-election (which I imagine none of them should find especially easy, at
this point), it will be their priorities during these tough times that will
define them. Therefore, they will be searching for the high priorities that
will be just right for them.

I ask you, members of Congress, what would constitute a good
priority? How about innovation? That’s a good one. How about investment in the
future? How about stimulating economic growth and relieving widespread economic
burdens? How about creating jobs and improving quality of life for the people
of their state and districts? How about prioritizing policies that will allow
people to dream and get excited?  And how
about a priority that will directly help you and your family in a way that won’t
get you arrested? And not just that, how about a priority that will benefit
every single one of your constituents, regardless of social class? Well, if
that all sounds good to you, have I got one big, sexy priority for you to
consider.

On behalf of scientists everywhere, Congressmen, you’re
welcome.