Nonetheless, there remains concern about whowill suffer from NIH cuts.

"All cutbacks will affect new and competinggrants," says Richard M. Losick, incoming chair ofthe Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology."The people affected most will be the new andstarting out researchers, not the ones thatalready have at least some grants."

"The nature of most five-year grants is thatthe funding is for five years; therefore, mostcurrent researchers, at least those not up for anew five-year grant, will not be nearly asaffected," Losick says. "The people starting outwill bear the brunt of the cutback."

Picking Winners and Losers

In their quest to downsize government, theRepublicans have considered eliminating certainprograms entirely. The Senate, for example,proposes to eliminate the Department of Commerce,while the House proposes to go once step furtherand eliminate the Departments of Energy andEducation as well.

The House plan leaves many programs andlaboratories, such as the Los Alamos nuclearresearch laboratory and Brookhaven NationalLaboratories, apparently unfunded. Some say thereis little coincidence that Los Alamos would befunded by the Senate plan drawn up by Domenici,whose home state is New Mexico.

Basic or curiosity-driven research overshadowsapplied or strategic research in the Republicanplan.

"Science should go where the research takesit," says Louis Whitsett, a Republican staffer forthe Senate Commerce, Science and TransportationCommittee. "Government should not artificiallyrestrict researchers."

But Democrats take a much different view on thesubject.

"Research for the sake of research; arguably,we cannot afford it any longer," says Matthews."But that does not mean that basic research isout."

Republicans are big on the private sectormaking decisions and funding programs themselves.The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is anexample of a program invented by Democrats tobolster research in the private sector, one thatis not popular with many Republicans.

"The private sector should make its owndecisions," Whitsett says. "Grants for commercialtechnology [i.e., the ATP] provide an unfairadvantage not given through strict competition. Inthe case of the ATP, most of the money has gone tohigh-tech firms where assistance is really notneeded."

Other Republican staffers say the government'srole is not to pay for research that companieswill not fund themselves.

"If you can't convince your stock-holders [thatresearch is worth spending on], then I don't thinkit is the government's reponsibility to step in,"says Paddy Link, Pressler's chief of staff."Where's the leadership if you can't convince yourBoard of Directors?

Democrats see technology grants as building abase for the nation's workers.