Andrew Marks, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, has released a scathing editorial criticizing Elias Zerhouni and the Bush administration's attack on the NIH. For a scientific journal, this type of language is both rare, and very funny.

In the Coen brothers' The Big Lebowski the hero, who calls himself "The Dude," has just had his apartment broken into by some dumb thugs. One of the thugs lifts the Dude's prized bowling ball and says, "What . . . is this?" The Dude replies, "Obviously you are not a golfer." The current state of the NIH prompts me to say to its director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, "Obviously you are not a scientist."

This is true, Zerhouni is famous for being a big donor to the Bush campaign, not for being a leader in science. He made his dough in the field of angioplasty catheters, but in terms of science, he's got the publications but nothing really groundbreaking, mostly publications in his trade journals (not that I would knock such research, but you typically don't get to be head of NIH with that record). It's also sad to note how far down the ladder the Bush administration had to go to find a scientist that would be loyal to them. Marks continues:

Dr. Zerhouni's apparent lack of understanding of how science is done is compounded by the utter lack of support for biomedical science from the White House and Congress. Neither Democrats nor Republicans appear to understand the key role of science in the nation's health, welfare, and economy. The White House under George W. Bush is targeting the NIH for destruction.

...the use of the term road map to describe Dr. Zerhouni's new directions for the NIH is misleading: a road map is a document that helps its readers locate their present locations, plot a course to a new location, and relocate once they arrive. The NIH Roadmap is not a road map at all, but a yellow brick road: it looks like it will lead us back to Kansas, but the way is really fraught with danger, the end of the road is not really where we want to go, and it is all just a fantasy. It was irresponsible of Dr. Zerhouni to use scarce funds to support his new initiative before protecting the most tried and true mechanism for funding science: the investigator-initiated RO1 grant. Instead, precious resources that the nation's scientists depend on for survival have been diverted to support a new enterprise whose success, directions, and goals are vague and unproven.

These are extremely strong words coming from a scientific journal. But Marks also offers a solution to the current problems facing the NIH.

There are achievable solutions that can reverse the demise of the NIH and rescue one of our nation's most precious resources. First, members of Congress need to step forward and champion the cause of supporting biomedical research. The NIH budget should be restored, with appropriate annual increases. This is an easy sell to the electorate, as every citizen has a vested interest in the development of cures for diseases and technologies that can improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of delivering health care. Second, the Roadmap needs to be shelved and the funds restored to the pool of resources that support investigator-initiated individual RO1 grants. Third, large clinical studies that suck up hundreds of millions of dollars need to be supported by pharmaceutical companies that are eager to fund them. Fourth, the process for funding established investigators needs to be streamlined and focused on productivity rather than on false promises. Some scientists are receiving millions of dollars of precious NIH funding and have little to show for it. Established investigators applying for competitive renewals should be required to provide a brief progress report and outline of proposed new directions along with their top 3-5 papers published in the previous funding period. The study sections could then make renewal contingent on the productivity and impact of the previously funded period, by far the best indicator of future success.

With these four simple steps we can ensure the health of our national scientific research enterprise and rescue the NIH before it is too late. The NIH is an essential component of the scientific community, one that we have grown comfortable with and somewhat taken for granted. Continued misdirection and neglect of the NIH will have long-lasting disastrous consequences for biomedical research and our ability to achieve scientific breakthroughs that can reduce human suffering and save lives.

I would add an additional three suggestions to fix the problems at NIH.

1. Get rid of that stupid fence and excess security that just makes it more difficult for patients, scientists, and visitors to access what should be an open federal facility.
   
2. If you are truly worried about security of the new BL4 bioterror facility, why did you build it right next to Rockville Pike? Why not just locate it in the middle of the campus, and just put a fence around it rather than the entire campus?
   
3. Get rid of the stupid ethics rules that Zerhouni is terrorizing senior scientists with in reaction to the relatively minor conflict of interest scandal concerning senior scientist consulting fees. The solution to the problem was simple, punish the one scientist who was seriously out of line and give a wrist-slap to the other 8 who were borderline. Instead, forcing everyone from scientists to janitors to secretaries (and their spouses) submit to outrageously excessive investment disclosures is yet another barrier to attracting talent to the institution.
   

Finally, if you think that this editorial is an exception to the rule, you should check out what David Baltimore says about this administration and science.

From the Nature article "Science Under Attack":

For Baltimore - Nobel laureate, outgoing president of the California Institute of Technology, president-elect of the AAAS, and arguably the most eminent voice in all of American science - events have reached a tipping point. He suggested that the Bush administration's approach to science stems from its adherence to a particular philosophy of government, that of a 'unitary executive'. Instead of resignedly shrugging their shoulders whenever such a case of scientific manipulation arises, Baltimore argued, scientists need to recognize the potency of the threat that this governmental philosophy represents to the long-cherished independence of US science.
...
Baltimore warned that the doctrine opens the way for "an exertion of executive hegemony over science". He called on researchers to "fight for a very different doctrine" under which "the executive's role is to defend intellectual freedom". In the light of the Bush administration's adherence to this philosophy, he added: "It is no accident that we are seeing such an extensive suppression of science." From someone of Baltimore's experience and reputation, these are strong words.