Washington

Relations between disgruntled microbiologists and their paymasters at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are degenerating in a very public way.

At issue: whether the influx of cash for studies on potential bioweapons is draining vital resources from basic research. This could leave the United States at far greater risk from natural disease outbreaks than it is ever likely to face from bioterrorism, the researchers fear.

More than 700 NIH-funded microbiologists signed a letter in the 4 March issue of Science (307, 1409–1410; 2005). In it they complained that since 2000 the number of grants for non-biodefence-related studies had dropped by 41% for model microorganisms and by 27% for pathogenic microorganisms.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which handles much of the NIH's biodefence work, responded on 1 April with a letter, co-signed by NIH director Elias Zerhouni (Science 308, 49; 2005). He painted a rosier picture, saying “from 2000 to 2005, funding for NIAID nonbiodefense research increased by more than 50%”.

But this has simply inflamed the organizers of the original complaint. “Seven hundred and fifty people didn't sign this letter because they were confused and there is no issue,” says Robert Landick, a bacteriologist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. And Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, calls the reply “frankly dishonest”.

So who is right? That depends on how you do the counting. Ebright focused on grants approved by four NIH review panels for work done at several different institutes. Fauci looked for basic microbiology grants across many more panels, including ones for epidemiology, behavioural research and even biodefence, but all within the NIAID.

“The applications are going other places and still getting funded,” says John McGowan, the NIAID's director of extramural activities.

But researchers who work at the NIH are unhappy too. A group led by Michael Yarmolinsky of the National Cancer Institute has voiced similar complaints in a closed letter to institute bosses.

The relevant directors say that they will meet both groups to discuss the issue, probably in May. But overcoming the bitter divisions will not be easy.