Apparently, there is a nice correlation between increasing NIH funding and decreasing mortality. The researchers who found this (with an acknowledgement – not disclaimer – of funding from the NIH) conclude:

To compensate for the slower future growth of the U.S. labor force (e.g., from 1.2% per annum in 1996 to 2006 to 0.3% after 2017) on economic growth, the size of NIH expenditures relative to GDP should quadruple to about 1% ( $120 Billion) and be done sufficiently rapidly (10 years) to compensate for the slowing growth of the U.S. labor force.

That seems like a rather strong statement for a correlation, but let’s assume for a moment that this is a true causation: NIH funding did lead to decreased mortality. One must always wonder, “Instead of what?” Instead of decreased overall mortality, did we miss out on a complete cure for cancer? Did we miss a chance to develop extremely clean energy that would also be profitable? Could we have fed Africa? We will never know the answers to these questions, and if we follow the researcher’s policy recommendations, we will also never know what would have been in the future.

The Best of Kathryn Muratore