Public Controversy: Government Funding of Medical Research

For my public controversy essay, I will discuss the distribution of dollars the U.S. Government has decided on for various areas of medical research, and whether I believe the U.S. has what I believe are the right numbers. I don't believe these are the right numbers (and I believe politicking and lobbying have a lot to do with the current distribution), and I take the stance that the amount of funding for each area of medical research should be systematically determined based on the following criteria:

• How many people are affected by the area now
• How many people can be affected by the area in the future
• The severity of the area

If my stance were implemented, HIV/AIDS research would likely receive much less government funding than it does now ($311K spent per HIV/AIDS patient death vs. $11K spent per cancer patient death). Many have commented that HIV/AIDS funding, for example, is fine the way it is or is actually underfunded, due to the extreme severity of the disease. I will use their voices as my counterargument.

Sources

• "Cancer Rally Calls Attention to the Politics of Medical Spending - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 25 Sept. 1998. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .
• "Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC)." NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .
• "The Facts." The Fair Foundation. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .
• "Race for Medical Cure Also a Contest for Funds : Research: The Federal Government Spends $2 Billion on AIDS, the Same as Cancer, and Perhaps It Should. But Arriving at a Decision Is as Much a Political Choice as a Scientific One. - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 07 June 1992. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .

Google keywords

• government funding medical research numbers aids cancer heart billion
• (edit 11/15) site:nature.com government funding research cancer aids opinion