The article was a response to NIH Director Francis Collins' comment in an interview that cuts to his agency's budget prevented researchers from developing an Ebola vaccine. The article attempted to show all of the reasons why the undisputed funding cuts could not have been responsible for our failure to more quickly contain the spread of Ebola this year.
Only one cited "reason" held any serious credibility. That was the fact that other infectious disease research received preferential treatment and funding. AIDS, for example, "warranted increased attention, research and funding from the NIH," and increases in funding might not have necessarily increased Ebola research in light of other programs deemed more life threatening at the time.
This is a decent point, but unfortunately it is the only one in the entire article. And while it does make its point, it also ignores the obvious fact that, despite perhaps being somewhat limited in comparison, Ebola research WAS IN PROGRESS before the budget cuts.
Other arguments were down right laughable. Yet followers of the Right Wing talking points are eager to soak this kind of crap up like sponges in a puddle.
1. More federal funding likely would not have led to the creation of a vaccine because pharmaceutical companies had little incentive to produce one. This obviously ignores the fact that funding, itself, is an incentive. In fact, it is the primary incentive of private corporate entities like pharmaceutical companies.
2. In recent years "steady funding has been available" for vaccine-creation programs, which usually take many years to be productive. This straw man argument ignores the fact that some funding is not necessarily sufficient funding. No one claimed there had been no funds available. There just haven't been enough to go around since the GOP cuts.
3. Ebola is "absent from the relevant strategic plan" produced by the National Institutes of Health. And no solicitations for research on Ebola have been included in recent request for research partners. Well, duh. Guess what the results of budget cuts usually include. That's right. Budget cuts equal elimination of programmatic objectives.