Research Funding

Ceaira Mckoy
Feeder 1.1
Funding Scientific Research is very expensive. I have to admit I am guilty of ignoring the importance of the monetary compensation of such strenuous processes. When doing assignments for class I merely go to the Internet and google necessary information, or go to the library respectively. Where would the world be without scientific research? How can we afford to discover scientific phenomena? I have stumbled upon two articles with opposing view points where funding comes from and where it should come from. The arguments in these sources is, “should funding for such research come from nontraditional sources, or is it the responisibility of the government to fund research in improvement of citizens’ health?”

“As the director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) and a senior adviser to the director, we and others have developed a different way to manage a significant portion of the agency's research portfolio. Our Provocative Questions initiative asks investigators to propose intriguing questions in cancer research that need attention but would usually find it difficult to get. The initiative does not replace the NCI's traditional reliance on the imaginations of individual investigators; nor does it intend to restate obvious goals. Instead, it aims to engage a diverse range of scientists in a challenging intellectual exercise to define then solve the major unsolved or neglected problems in oncology.” This quote contains the thesis statement, from the article. The purpose of the article was to raise awareness that institutions such as the NCI need funding so that research is affordable for subject areas that are less studied. More specifically, funding from nontraditional sources: tax payers, benefactor, etc. This particular article chose to include drug mechanisms, cancer evolution, obesity risk, and ageing and cancer as specific under-studied topics.

This article opposes the article above. “According to the U.S. Constitution, one role of the government is to "promote the general welfare" of its people. This clearly means that the health of the citizens of the United States is important to the success of the nation. Also according to the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to collect taxes that will pay for the general welfare of United States citizens as long as every American benefits equally.” As where the first article argued research funding needed to come from other sources, this article deems the federal government responsible for such monetary compensation. The article also goes on to say that the money taxpayers’ pay is not put to good use. This article doesn’t really hit the topics of under-studied areas, but as far as funding is concerned it is very clear that the author of the article hold the US accountable for the necessary funds. The author feels strongly on the misuse of the moneys the government receives from taxes, and states that Ideally, the U.S. government will stop spending trillions of our tax dollars on military equipment and conquests. Instead of finding new ways of killing people with unmanned aircraft and depleted uranium bombs they will spend that money on trying to save the lives of American taxpayers.






Works Cited

Varmus, Harold, and Ed Harlow. "Science Funding: Provocative Questions in Cancer Research." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/481436a>.




Crain, Sandi. ""Should the Government Fund Cancer Research?"" Helium.com. Helium, Inc., 10 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.helium.com/debates/106766-should-the-government-fund-cancer-research/side_by_side>.