By Mark Ralston –CNNPolitics.comA few weeks ago, when the White House’s budget director asked if we could see any future budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the NIH, the agency responsible for funding research, responded with a blank stare.

The NIH, it said, would not be able to sustain itself through its current funding levels.

It’s been that way since 2003.

And it’s not going to change anytime soon.

“I think the only way we’re going to get out of this crisis is to get the money out of the NIH,” NIH director Francis Collins said.

“And if we don’t get the funds, we’ll never get out.”

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on Thursday.

And in the wake of the Trump administration’s budget proposal, that assessment has only gotten worse.

“The science community is deeply concerned about the lack of funding for basic research at the NIH and the lack to fund basic research in general,” says the report by the NSF’s Director of Science Policy and Public Engagement, Chris Lips.

The National Institutes have long been considered the gold standard in basic research.

And the NIH is arguably the most important agency in the world for basic science research, but funding has been tight ever since the agency was created in the 1950s.

“The NIH has never been the agency to get more funding than it needs,” says Lips, adding that it has had to rely on private companies to fund some of its most basic research since the mid-1960s.

And now, thanks to the Trump budget proposal , that funding will have to be cut.

“We’re not in the position to do this without some of the big private companies and private universities investing in it,” says NSF Director Julie DeYoung.

“If we can’t get some of these big companies investing in the NIH without losing our basic research funding, then we will have no future.”

DeYoung and Lips have written a report called The Future of Basic Research that outlines how the NIH could do better, starting with getting more money into the coffers of universities and research centers.

This could include the hiring of more basic scientists, more researchers in labs with the right research funding to study basic science and more funding for research centers like the NSU that can better support research with a higher-profile focus like basic science.

“It’s going to take the support of a lot of private investors,” says DeYoung, who has been working on the report for years.

“You’re going the private sector to find funding that’s going there.”

But the Trump proposal will likely only provide a small slice of the funding needed to rebuild the NIH.

The Trump administration is proposing a $4 billion cut in funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the federal agency that oversees the NIH’s research.

This will likely cause a “huge amount of uncertainty” for researchers, says Deyoung.

The agency has been a lifeline to basic research, she adds.

But a number of other areas are not expected to receive funding boosts.

There is a lack of money for new technologies, for instance.

And even if the government were to fund a new generation of vaccine and diagnostic technologies, it could take years to get to market, so the NIH needs to find new funding sources to support the new technologies.

And while the NIH has a dedicated fund for basic scientific research, it’s only about $2.5 billion, and that fund is expected to dry up under the Trump proposed cuts.

“What’s really going to hurt us, really hard, is if the funding for some of our more basic science projects is not forthcoming, then you’re going a long way to explain the loss of funding from the NIH to the NIH because we’re just not going back to the state where we were before,” says Mark Jacobson, who runs a basic science think tank at the University of Texas at Austin.

He’s particularly concerned about a proposed budget cut that could affect basic research research at institutions like the University, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

These are the basic research agencies that research in infectious diseases.

These agencies would lose a lot.

“So that would really hit these institutions hard,” Jacobson says.

In short, if Congress fails to pass a long-term funding bill, we may see some of those funds go to basic science institutions.

The impact will be felt most acutely at universities, Jacobson adds.

“It’s a really big deal, because universities are really the backbone of basic research and so many of these institutions have really invested a lot in basic science over the years.”

There is a long list of ways that the Trump plan could affect researchers.

It would affect the NIH budget, which is already under a lot more pressure.

And there are also ways that it could hurt basic research: it would reduce the