Surely you've heard: money for research is harder than ever to come by, with nine in ten grant applications at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) rejected at first pass.

Hard times: The number of grants awarded at the National Institutes of Health has fallen since 1999.

The figures are discouraging, albeit not as grim as some would have you believe.

A report in September fanned scientists' resentment, announcing that in 2005 the approval rate for new R01s—grants that fund individual basic research—had fallen to 9.1%, and had been dropping steadily since 2000 (Science 313, 1387–1388; 2006).

But the article only noted the success of an original submission. Researchers have three chances to submit each grant. At 17.9%, the final 2005 approval rate is considerably higher than that reported in Science, but down from 25.5% in 1999. Researchers say they are feeling more of a pinch because scientific enterprise boomed during the Clinton-era budget increases.

Between 1998 and 2003, the NIH's budget doubled to an unprecedented $27 billion. But since 2006, it has flattened out to $28.6 billion. For fiscal year 2007, the budget is expected to take a dive for the first time in decades, a 0.23% cut from last year, which Congress is expected to finalize after the November elections.

This is killing us. Stephen Heinemann, The Society for Neuroscience

“It's certainly true that the budget has been flat and, if you consider inflation, there's actually been a decrease,” says Norka Ruiz Bravo, head of the NIH's Office for Extramural Research.

Scrambling for resources, scientists are shrinking their labs, breaking up established collaborations and seeking funding elsewhere—such as with non-profits, which provide smaller grants. Some younger scientists are leaving science altogether.

“There are absolute examples of this,” says Leo Furcht, director of the Maryland-based Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “I can see it on a local level, as well as on a national level; I can see it with young people and older people.”

Young researchers do appear to be among the hardest hit: last year, 3,894 young scientists won grants, compared with 4,521 in 2003, and the fewest since 1998. The average age at which investigators receive their first R01 has jumped from 39 in the early 1990s to 42 in 2004.

“This is killing us,” says Stephen Heinemann, president of the Society for Neuroscience. “If the young people don't get the grants, all of us will get old and there'll be no science.”

NIH officials say they are doing whatever possible to compensate. The agency has awarded 150 investigators new K99/R00 awards—dubbed 'kangaroos'—which provide support for two years of postdoctoral work and R01-like support for the subsequent three years.

Concerned, Republican Senator Arlen Specter held a hearing in May in which NIH director Elias Zerhouni joined researchers and doctors in testifying that the budget freeze would jeopardize scientific advancement.

Congress hasn't finalized the budget, but the NIH is not expecting a last-minute increase.

Says H. George Mandel, chairman of the National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs in Washington DC, who wrote the Science report. “[America's leadership in science] cannot continue without additional funding.”