of the committee's main findings with respect to program activities and balance among scientific disciplines. The discussion is organized by institute, and the grant-based information is presented according to categories developed by the committee. Further information about how the grant-based analysis was conducted—including its limitations—may be found in Appendix A; the results from the research supported are included in the general discussions in Part I.
The committee was asked to assess the "adequacy" of funding of AIDS programs at NIAAA, NIDA, and NIMH with respect to balance in the scientific portfolios and the relationship between AIDS and non-AIDS research. "Adequacy" is a subjective term, especially since some would argue that until completely effective prevention and treatment interventions are discovered for HIV, no amount of money spent on AIDS research is adequate. The committee did not wish to engage in this discussion, nor did it wish to assess the merits of funding AIDS research relative to funding other disease-related research. Rather, the committee chose to focus on the overall situation of AIDS funding at the former ADAMHA institutes and offices, from the beginning of the epidemic to the present, and to identify areas where serious inadequacies are evident.
The historical review of AIDS funding presented here is based on the most recent comparable budget information provided by NIH, NIAAA, NIDA, NIMH, and SAMHSA. Therefore, expenditures are displayed and discussed using the current organizational structure of the institutes and agencies being reviewed. For example, information about SAMHSA and NIH funding reflects the current organizational splits between research and services (designated by the 1992 ADAMHA reorganization). Information about total NIH funding includes the former ADAMHA research institutes.
Despite the best efforts of various budget offices, some sets of numbers may not always be completely consistent with other sets since data were derived from a multiplicity of sources and were tabulated for a variety of purposes. In addition, other problems associated with retabulating entire budgets (to make them comparable) after the reorganization arose, such as changes in what was defined as AIDS research from year to year within an institute (i.e., coding anomalies) and differences in rounding.