Friday, December 02, 2011
Taking Note: Finding Parallels Between the NIH and NEA
Art Works: In my early to mid-20s, I was a reporter and then managing editor for a news service that covered biomedical research and health policy. Based in the Washington, DC area, I had two main beats. One was Capitol Hill and its vast network of scientific societies and academic research institutions. The other was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. The first beat led me to loud convention centers and occasionally fractious hearing rooms. The second was far more tranquil, sometimes idyllic. NIH is like a small college campus—at least to outsiders—and even its research conferences and board meetings have an academic feel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is interesting that the NIH and NEA have similar peer review processes for the grant proposals. It is important that there is a rubric for how funding is dispersed and the NEA seems to be developing and refining what should receive funding. The problem that I see is that art is so subjective who's aesthetic are we pandering to? How do we keep up diverse and intellectually stimulating arts? This article shows that unlike the politicians view of the NEA, the funding is given out with criteria and well founded reasoning. To cut this programs funding based on the need for a balanced budget is stupid because they obviously have developmental reasons for the art that they fund.
Post a Comment