It became obvious in the discussions of funding, whether by public or private sources, that the definition and scope of health-related activities varied. Within federally supported activities, support for research came under the term life sciences. Philanthropic organizations broaden their perspective to include hospitals, medical care, public health, and health policy. Private, for-profit firms conduct research in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and medical devices. In addition to NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services supports research at the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and the Health Care Financing Administration.
Medical research is embedded in the fabric of science and engineering.
It is an interdisciplinary, multi-agency effort. Advances in such fields as chemistry, physics, electronics, and mechanical engineering, supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Defense, among others, illuminate medical science and provide instruments and insights that complement it. Other agencies should not treat areas that address medical issues as solely NIH s bailiwick, and advocates for medical research should not ignore the contributions of agencies other than NIH and the importance of addressing their budgetary needs. Participants entered the breakout sessions with a general sense that the current system of annual appropriations within the discretionary budget was the best vehicle for overall continued federal funding of medical research. And while each discussion group approached the problem of alternative funding mechanisms differently, there was a consensus opinion that any alternative mechanisms that might be proposed should supplement the current process in a complementary fashion rather than replace it.