The NIH-Pentagon funding agreement has drawn criticism from several members of Congress, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Critics argue that the arrangement could allow funds approved for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be redirected to the Pentagon without explicit congressional authorization. Other lawmakers and scientists suggest that the agreement may be part of a broader effort to shift biodefense and biosecurity research from the NIH to the Department of Defense.
A particularly controversial feature of the agreement is the potential use of NIH funding for research that agency leaders have previously rejected. Before the Trump administration, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) supported extensive research into emerging diseases, pandemic preparedness, and the development of potential countermeasures. However, in a commentary published earlier this year, the directors of NIAID and the NIH called for biodefense research to be removed from the agency’s responsibilities. They instead emphasized research into “the most impactful infectious diseases facing Americans today.”
Despite that shift in policy, the new agreement states that funds will be used to protect the United States from future pandemic strains, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as other emerging infectious diseases, according to the CBRN office. In effect, the NIH could be transferring money to the Pentagon for research that NIH leadership has indicated should no longer be a central part of its mission.
The agreement remains broadly worded, making its eventual impact difficult to assess until detailed spending data becomes available. The arrangement also raises questions about congressional oversight, the future of pandemic preparedness research, and the appropriate division of responsibilities between the NIH and the Department of Defense. Future Congresses could restrict or prohibit this type of funding transfer, although recent developments suggest lawmakers may be willing to consider such action.
Source: arstechnica.com