Category Archives: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Dear Research Advocate:
In recognition of his many accomplishments as a champion for research, Research!America Chair and former Congressman John Edward Porter was honored by the National Academy of Sciences with the Public Welfare Medal, the Academy’s most prestigious award. This well-deserved acknowledgment of Porter’s tireless efforts to advance innovation and engage scientists in advocacy should motivate advocates to follow his lead and speak up about threats to our nation’s research ecosystem. Read our statement on the award ceremony here.
In his remarks, Mr. Porter noted that “political judgment should never be allowed to be substituted for scientific judgment.” This point was particularly well-timed as political attacks on science, particularly health services research, continue unabated.
A case study from Louisiana highlights the importance of health research in saving lives. Children’s Hospital in New Orleans had an outbreak of a deadly hospital-acquired infection, mucormycosis in 2008-09. In response to several outbreaks in recent years, the CDC launched new targeted initiatives to help hospitals and health departments share information with the public about hospital-acquired infections.This type of public health work, based on health services research findings, is critical to delivering high quality care, reducing medical errors and protecting patients. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
The budget and appropriations process typically reveals stark differences in funding priorities among the two parties. And this year is no exception. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-08) introduced the Democrats’ 10-year budget plan this week, which stands apart from the Republican proposal introduced by Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) most notably by ending sequestration. The Ryan budget, which won House approval today, is on its way to the Senate but is considered dead on arrival. Note that there’s still time to urge your Members of Congress to support medical and health research as this year’s appropriations process continues!
Teen “whiz kids” profiled in the latest issue of People magazine personify the future of science and medical innovation. Among them, Jack Andraka, who at age 15, created an affordable diagnostic test for pancreatic cancer that provides results in five minutes. He faced tremendous obstacles securing funding for his breakthrough innovation, a problem we see all too often in medical and health research. Such ingenuity propels our best and brightest to take risks but the funding to support their revolutionary ideas is not within their grasp.
Discussing these innovative projects with candidates and elected officials is key to elevating science and technology in the national conversation. In Research!America’s newly released poll data summary booklet, America Speaks, Volume 14, two-thirds of Americans (66%) say it’s important for candidates running for office to assign a high priority to funding medical research. Now is the time to ask future and returning Members of Congress if they believe that medical progress is a high national priority as part of our new national voter education initiative Ask Your Candidates!, which was formally launched this week. More details about America Speaks and the campaign can be found here. As the number of lawmakers with a background in science diminishes, it’s more important than ever to engage with your representatives. Michael S. Lubell writes in Roll Call that if we don’t elect a new scientist in the upcoming elections, it will mark a six-year decline from five to two Members of Congress who have a PhD in a natural science.
National Public Health Week, which wraps up tomorrow, provides another opportunity to engage policy makers about the benefits of health research. Don’t miss our recent blog post celebrating public health — an often underappreciated facet of our research ecosystem.
A new video highlighting backstage interviews with our 2014 Advocacy Award Winners illustrates the passion and drive of these extraordinary leaders who have contributed greatly to medical progress. We encourage you to nominate individuals and organizations whose leadership efforts have been notably effective in advancing our nation’s commitment to research for the 2015 Advocacy Awards.
As you’re aware, members of Research!America’s management team will guest-author this letter in Mary’s absence. This week’s author is Research!America’s vice president of communications, Suzanne Ffolkes.
Few Americans Know Where Elected Officials and Candidates Stand on Government Support for Research and Innovation, New Polling Booklet Reveals
Research!America and partners launch national voter education initiative to elevate the priority of medical progress
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—April 8, 2014—Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say it’s important for candidates running for office to assign a high priority to funding medical research, according to America Speaks, Volume 14, a compilation of key questions from public opinion polls commissioned by Research!America. Polling shows that Americans place a high value on U.S. leadership in medical innovation, yet only 12% say they are very well informed about the positions of their senators and representative when it comes to their support of medical and scientific research. www.researchamerica.org/poll_summary.
To help close this knowledge gap, Research!America and partner organizations are launching a national voter education initiative, Ask Your Candidates! Is Medical Research Progress a Priority? Through online and grassroots activities, social media strategies and on-the-ground events, congressional candidates will be urged to share their views on government policies and support for medical innovation conducted in both the public and private sectors. www.askyourcandidates.org.
“Candidates must do a better job articulating their vision for medical progress, clarifying what level of priority they assign to research as a way to assure improved health, well-being and economic security of all Americans,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “Voters need to know whether their candidates view lifesaving medical research as an imperative or an afterthought.”
During election season, Americans want candidates to talk about medical progress. Nearly three-quarters (74%) say it’s important to know whether their candidates for Congress are supportive of medical and scientific research. Notably, more than half of respondents (53%) do not believe elected officials in Washington are paying enough attention to combating the many deadly diseases that afflict Americans. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
The doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget between FY99 and FY03 is an example of Congress at its most productive … and it hinged on bipartisanship. A small group of Republicans and Democrats recognized the power of medical progress, and they worked together to increase the budget baseline for NIH by nearly $11.5 billion. Without that doubling, and with the stagnation of virtually all non-defense discretionary funding that followed on its heels, which groundbreaking medical discoveries would still lie dormant? Which of those we hold dear would not be alive today?
Research!America Chair and former Congressman John Porter, who chaired the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, was one of a relatively small group of champions on that bipartisan team. On Monday, March 31, the National Institutes of Health held a dedication ceremony for the John Edward Porter Neuroscience Research Center. NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, Senators Tom Harkin and Mark Kirk, renowned researchers and NIH alumni Dr. Gerald Fischbach and Dr. Steven Hyman, and other distinguished leaders paid tribute to Congressman Porter, acknowledging his staunch commitment to bipartisanship and his extraordinary contribution to advancing medical research. As Congressman Porter emphasized during his remarks, the two are not unrelated. The severe partisan divide in Congress has served to perpetuate the stagnation of NIH resources, both by compromising the deliberative process that is meant to inform the prioritization of appropriated dollars and by stymying tax and entitlement reform. Scientists must fight back, buoyed by the high esteem in which they are held by the public and armed with unique insights into the societal benefits of investing in research. View photos of the dedication ceremony here and our statement here. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
There is still time — if you act quickly — to urge your representative to sign on to the House letter authored by Representatives McKinley (R-WV-01), Davis (D-CA-53), Carson (D-IN-07) and King (R-NY-02) urging more support for NIH — it will be finalized by close of business today. A similar Senate letter, authored by Senators Casey (D-PA) and Burr (R-NC), will be finalized Tuesday, April 1; ask your senators to sign on today!
An appropriations mechanism known as a “tap” made the news Tuesday when, during a hearing on NIH, Members of Congress asked advocates questions about the use of a tap by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to move money from the NIH appropriation to fund the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and for other uses. While it can sound as though HHS makes this allocation on its own initiative, actually it is the Appropriations Committee that has determined to fund AHRQ in this way, rather than funding it as an independent agency or otherwise. Bottom line, the funding mechanism isn’t what’s at issue here — the real question is whether AHRQ serves the interests of Americans. And it certainly does. As noted in our testimony submitted for the hearing at which the tap issue was raised, AHRQ supports lifesaving, quality and efficiency-enhancing health care research. Like NIH, AHRQ meets our nation’s need for basic non-commercial knowledge, while the private sector finances the critical, commercial R&D that brings final products to the market.
On March 25, Research!America submitted testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies concerning FY15 appropriations for the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) play pivotal roles in combating disabling and deadly health conditions. Moreover, the funding, or lack of it, allocated to these agencies will bear on our nation’s ability to compete in key export markets within the global economy, foster business development that grows and maintains jobs across the country, meet our solemn obligations to wounded warriors and support troops on the ground, combat deadly medical errors, and protect our nation against pandemics and emerging health threats. The stakes truly are that high.
Read the full testimony here.
It is a day that gives us each the space to better understand the magnitude of the TB threat, mourn the loss of the more than 1 million people worldwide who die of TB each year, recognize the tragic consequences for their loved ones and for economic stability in impoverished nations, and express gratitude for those who conduct TB research, finance and deploy on-the-ground interventions, and advocate for the resources needed to conquer this vicious killer.
TB is the second most common cause of death from infectious disease, after HIV/AIDS. In 2012, approximately 8.6 million developed TB and 1.3 million died from the disease, with the death rate particularly high among HIV-positive patients.
There is good news on the TB front: infection rates have been falling for a decade and the mortality rate has dropped 45% since 1990. These results are in line with the millennial development goals, which set TB control metrics for 2015. Unfortunately, progress against other targets is lagging, including a slower than hoped for reduction in the prevalence of active TB and highly disappointing results in the diagnosis and treatment of multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB).
In the US, it’s far too easy — and a dangerous mistake — to dismiss the significance of tuberculosis. It is true that gone are the days when TB was prevalent in the US, the days when Americans were quarantined to reduce the infection rate and sent to sanitariums for treatment that sometimes worked…and too often didn’t. But with global travel, TB is entering our country, and with drug-resistant forms of the infection spreading, American lives are at risk. There have even been cases reported of totally-drug resistant TB, which means that resistance has been detected in every known treatment. The implications of an outbreak of totally drug resistant TB in the US are as ominous as they are in developing countries, particularly for those with compromised immune systems.
So what’s next? Our role as a global leader and our identity as a compassionate people underscore the importance of robust American support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, as well as robust appropriations for USAID and other on-the-ground efforts to combat TB. For sake of Americans and the global community, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention must be resourced sufficiently to develop new TB treatments, identify new prevention strategies, and assist in global TB control.
And it is important to acknowledge philanthropic and private sector efforts to combat TB, including the work of RESULTS, the Gates Foundation, and companies such as Johnson and Johnson.
When 1.3 million people die each year from an infectious disease that poses a renewed threat to the United States, waging war against that disease is not an option, it is an imperative.
Dear Research Advocate:
Fostering research and innovation has long been a multi-pronged effort — government, industry, academia, patients and patient organizations, foundations, and individual philanthropists — all working to advance research. The current interest shown by private philanthropists in advancing science is an echo of a phenomenon witnessed a century ago — and a sign of the opportunity available in some way to all of us to accelerate medical progress and maintain our nation’s competitive edge. As reported in a recent front page New York Times article, private donors are stepping up in a big way at a time when scientific opportunity has never been greater. But it is worth noting that even as philanthropic spending is surging, and while it has historically been an important, often energizing component of U.S. leadership in science, the most robust philanthropic support imaginable would still not be sufficient — nor is it intended to — replace federal support.
In tracking medical R&D spending across all sectors over time, Research!America’s annual investment reports not only support the NYT finding that philanthropic spending is growing, but place that spending in perspective. For example, in 2011, NIH spending dwarfed medical- and health-related philanthropic research spending by nearly $29 billion. That does not mean philanthropic giving isn’t important; rather, it demonstrates that the magnitude of funding needed to drive medical progress is too large to rely on individual or foundation giving. Public and industry dollars are quite simply indispensable to the research pipeline. We call on every sector, every individual (including you billionaires out there!) to step up and increase support. We urge you to fund basic as well as translational research, to identify new approaches and new partnerships, to show us all how to take risks and demand accountability, and to work with and for the overall research enterprise. And — perhaps most important of all — commit to giving confidence to young scientists that their work is valued and will be sustained.
There’s no question about it: We all play a role in achieving better health and quality of life, very much including those who volunteer to participate in clinical trials. We are proud to spread the word about a new campaign initiated by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the National Minority Quality Forum (NMQF). The “I’m In” campaign aims to increase diversity in clinical trials and give patients the opportunity to connect with trials in their communities. Research!America polling shows that while Americans are interested in clinical trials, levels of participation are low, especially among African-American, Asian and Hispanic populations. Advancing medical progress means participating! Our newly released America Speaks, Volume 14 poll data summary booklet includes relevant information on public attitudes about clinical trials.
One time-sensitive way you can exercise your responsibility for advancing medical progress is by asking your representatives in Washington to join the chorus of legislators who support strong, continued funding for research. Members of the House and Senate have the opportunity to share their priorities with the appropriations committees until April 4. Send a note to your representatives urging them to submit appropriations requests that support robust medical research funding in FY15.
Finally, I encourage you to review our just-released 2013 Annual Report, which thanks all our members and supporters — you! — for working with us to inform and engage policy makers, media and the public.
We extend our congratulations to the honorees: Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Chaka Fattah (D-PA); actress Glenn Close and her family for their work to end the stigmas and misunderstandings surrounding mental illness; Leroy Hood, MD, PhD, president of the Institute for Systems Biology; Kathy Giusti, founder and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF); Reed Tuckson, MD, managing director of Tuckson Health Connections; and The Progeria Research Foundation (PRF).
While much has been done to advance research, we have a long way to go.
“Few out there seem to connect the dots to understand that federal funding is essential to develop the foundation of knowledge which is essential for American enterprise in developing the products and therapies that make our lives longer, healthier, and happier,” said Research!America Chair and former Member of Congress The Hon. John E. Porter in remarks at the Dinner. “There’s nothing more important to our future than investments in science, research, innovation and technology.”
And we agree! Contact your representatives and tell them to make research funding a higher priority.
Distinguished guests included current and former members of Congress and administration officials. Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Rep. David Price (D-NC), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), joined the celebration. Research!America board members, The Hon. Mike Castle, The Hon. Kweisi Mfume and The Hon. Patrick Kennedy also attended the event along with former Congresswoman Mary Bono , former HHS Secretary The Hon. Dr. Louis Sullivan, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, NSF Acting Director Dr. Cora Marrett, and PCORI Executive Director Dr. Joe Selby.
Click here to see photos.
The House and the Senate have begun deliberations on funding levels for NIH, CDC, AHRQ, NSF and FDA for FY15. Pressure to cut federal spending this midterm election year is enormous, and we need advocates to reach out to their representatives. Members in both houses of Congress are accepting input from constituents on which priorities they should fight for. Let your representatives know that combating disabling and deadly diseases is a national imperative, and funding for the agencies committed to this fight should be included on their list of appropriations priorities. Contact them TODAY and share this alert on Facebook, Twitter and with your networks.
The president’s budget does not reflect the potential the U.S. has to advance scientific discovery. While welcome, the minor increases for the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Food and Drug Administration diminish our ability to accelerate the pace of medical innovation, which saves countless lives, helps our nation meet its solemn commitment to wounded warriors, and is a major driver of new businesses and jobs. We’re also disappointed with reduced funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AHRQ and CDC cannot be neglected in the name of deficit reduction, and it is truly disturbing that the president’s budget treats those crucial agencies in that manner. The capacity to improve health outcomes and health care efficiency, stem the explosion in chronic diseases, and protect the security of our nation in the face of lethal, drug-resistant infections and international pandemics all hinge on the expertise and resources available to these agencies. We must expand investigations into cancer clusters, deadly meningitis outbreaks and research crucial to bioterrorism preparedness, not reverse course. These funding levels also jeopardize our global leadership in science — in effect ceding leadership to other nations as they continue to invest in strong R&D infrastructures that have already begun to attract our best and brightest innovators. We simply cannot sustain our nation’s research ecosystem, combat costly and deadly diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer, and create quality jobs with anemic funding levels that threaten the health and prosperity of Americans. The administration and Congress must work together to boost funding for federal research and health agencies in FY15 and end the sequester in order to truly meet the level of scientific opportunity.
Dear Research Advocate:
What will determine the speed and scope of medical progress in the years to come? There is more to it than the essential ingredients of money and brainpower.
Sound tax policy is essential if we are to propel medical progress.
Yesterday, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI-04), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced a comprehensive tax reform bill. While the prospects for passage during this election year are — to put a positive spin on it — uncertain, Congressman Camp laid down the gauntlet for much-needed tax and entitlement reform, and he also proposed making the R&D tax credit permanent. Uncertainty surrounding future access to the R&D tax credit has reduced its power to drive private sector R&D investment. While the Camp bill does not contain the ideal package of changes needed to optimize the usefulness of the credit, and in fact contains some potential setbacks, his decision to support making the R&D tax credit permanent sets the stage for finally achieving this long-standing goal.
Scientists, physicians and patients must all work to increase clinical trial participation.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, a personal hero of mine, former Surgeon General and CDC Director David Satcher, MD, discusses the importance of African-Americans contributing to medical progress by participating in clinical research. Using Alzheimer’s disease as a lens, he argues that adequate research funding is not the only imperative; individuals must be willing to volunteer for clinical trials. Participation is especially valuable for racial and ethnic groups who have much to gain as health disparities persist, but who understandably remember mistreatment in trials in the past. Polling commissioned by Research!America has affirmed this lack of trust but also, importantly, has revealed that African-Americans in particular say they want to help others by participating in trials. We also learned from our polls that most Americans, across all demographics, look to their physicians to be the touchpoint for learning about clinical trial participation.
Improved scientist engagement with the public and policy makers is essential.
Medical research stands a better chance of becoming a higher national priority if people can connect meaningfully to scientists. As Alan Alda said at the annual AAAS meeting last week, and in an interview with Claudia Dreifus in The New York Times, “How are scientists going to get money from policy makers if our leaders and legislators can’t understand what they do?” He and his colleagues at the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook use of the some of the same approaches we do to help the science community connect with non-scientists in ways that can truly move mountains. Alda adds a passion for science with dramatic talent for a skill set we can all learn from.
Media attention — old school and new school — is key.
Both traditional and social media play a role in the fate of U.S. medical progress because of their ability to call public and policy maker attention to possibilities and stumbling blocks. Research!America and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network hosted a media luncheon today to discuss the challenges involved in turning cancer, in all its insidious forms, into a manageable chronic condition. It was reinforced to us that journalists’ questions are good markers of questions the public in general are raising; it’s important for scientists and advocates to listen and respond. Sometimes we fall into the pattern of just repeating our own messages louder and louder, but we should instead step back and listen to the sometimes-challenging questions being raised by media as they seek to inform the public. All of us who care about the future of research for health should seek out opportunities to engage with journalists. Contact us for suggestions on how to get started!
Dear Research Advocate:
People everywhere are captivated by the world-class athletes competing at the Winter Olympics. The personal commitment, dedication and motivation on display is certainly an essential ingredient for medalling, but it is not sufficient: Each nation fielding a team must commit to supporting sustained excellence. And both the public and private sectors play a role. There are some interesting parallels to science and innovation — we don’t see it in the public eye every day but when it comes to the fore, it’s the kind of success that affirms the human spirit in a compelling way. When lives are saved with a new therapy or new vaccine, we all take heart and we celebrate, perhaps not realizing that it took years of training, teamwork and ‘practice’ to arrive first at the finish line. What it takes to remain internationally competitive in any global arena — very much including science and innovation — is the combination of well-trained and dedicated people at the top of their form, plus a firm national commitment over a many-year period.
In journalistic coverage that we don’t see often enough, a special report in Monday’s Washington Post describes how government-funded basic research has led to new cancer therapies and a potential “cancer vaccine” currently undergoing testing in the private sector. This is a perfect example of the well-honed teamwork that is our public-private sector research enterprise. But without public sector financing, private sector capital and a commitment to STEM education, the pipeline will not only dry up, its infrastructure will crumble. As Congress readies itself to receive and respond to the president’s budget in early March, email your representatives in Washington to let them know that when it comes to medical research and innovation, the U.S. must continue to go for the gold. That means recommitting to global leadership.
With long-standing champions of science retiring, spurring that commitment will undoubtedly be a steeper climb. Congressman Rush Holt, a physicist whose legacy in Congress as a champion for science, research and STEM education is truly superlative, announced his retirement on Tuesday. His is the latest retirement in a string that reminds us how pivotally important one Member of Congress can be in advancing the best interests of our nation, and it underscores the importance of cultivation of new champions.
Tomorrow morning several NIH directors (NINDS, NICHD, NHLBI and NIAMS) will appear on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. The call-in program airs from 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Eastern. I hope you take advantage of participating in this nationally broadcast program. Ask the directors what they think it will take to assure gold-medal winning research now and in the years ahead! Here are the Washington Journal’s phone numbers for calling in tomorrow:
- Democrats: 202-585-3880
- Republicans: 202-585-3881
- Independents: 202-585-3882
- Outside U.S.: 202-585-3883
I hope to hear your voice on the air!
Dear Research Advocate,
Ironically, the government is closed down today. But that’s due to a major snowstorm, not because of failure to agree on increasing the debt limit! Agreeing to increase the debt limit is an encouraging sign that this Congress, weighed down as it is by ideological and political differences, and with record- low approval rankings from the public, can get its job done! Our job is to be sure research is a top priority in this election year — spoken of with conviction by all candidates and by the media and others who influence them.
Standing tall among Members of Congress who champion science are the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations’ Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies subcommittee, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA-10) and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA-02). At our upcoming March 12 Advocacy Awards dinner, Research!America will honor Reps. Wolf and Fattah with the Edwin C. Whitehead Award for Medical Research Advocacy, saluting their tireless efforts to champion policies that promote federal and private sector medical research and innovation. Be sure to join us!
Robert Samuelson observes in The Washington Post that Congress, whether by action or inaction, is making too many decisions “on the sly,” without real public awareness or comprehension. Samuelson says that in so doing Congress is compromising priorities like defense and medical research while simultaneously failing to address tax and entitlement reform. I think it is telling that he chose to identify the loss of purchasing power by the NIH as one of three critical problems created as our elected representatives fail to find a clear path through the ideological storm. One of these days they will make those major decisions, and that’s when it will pay off that research has been well-positioned as a top national priority. We must continue to make the case and make it forcefully.
Even as we work to keep our issue in the forefront of big-picture policy change, we must at the same time make our case via the appropriations process, which is proceeding, for the first time in years, according to ‘regular order.’ Right now, in FY14, funding for NIH is lower than in FY12 (and in constant dollars is lower than FY03!) — a shortfall that makes absolutely no sense if the goal is to serve the best interests of America and Americans. Other science agencies are underfunded as well, and the policy environment for private sector research and innovation is not compatible with our nation’s goals of global leadership. As you prepare to pound the pavement and take to social media to make the case to appropriators for research, take inspiration and new data from the following:
- Strong arguments for changing course by Dr. Claire Pomeroy, president of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation in The Huffington Post.
- Updated facts on science and research in the U.S.: National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2014.
- Creative, unique short videos demonstrating the importance of federal investments in biomedical and biological science from the winners of FASEB’s second Stand Up for Science Video Competition.
And this: According to the National Retail Federation, Americans are expected to spend $17.3 billion in celebration of Valentine’s Day. That amount would fund the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute for more than five years! We are a wealthy nation; we can well afford to spend more on the future of health than we currently are.
Excerpt of an op-ed by the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation President Claire Pomeroy, MD, published in the Huffington Post.
As an HIV physician, I began my career early in the AIDS epidemic before effective antiviral medications existed. I held my patients’ hands as they cried when receiving their diagnosis and I went to their funerals. I saw hope in their eyes when new antivirals became available. And when protease inhibitors were licensed and “triple therapy” became the norm, I could help patients plan how they would live, rather than how they would die. Scientific breakthroughs happened only because of our nation’s commitment to biomedical research, but this power of research to make lives better is at great risk.
The decline of U.S. prominence in global biomedical research is upon us: The National Institutes of Health budget has been flat for 10 years and lost 25 percent of its purchasing power, sequestration cut $1.7 billion from the 2013 NIH budget and the 2014 budget is $714 million less than the level approved for 2013, the federal government shutdown prevented enrollment of patients into clinical studies and delayed clinical research protocols, and next generation researchers are taking ideas and talents to other countries. The U.S. sits on the sidelines as nations such as China and India increase research investment by nearly 20 percent while the U.S. drops by 5 percent.
The government’s failure to ensure significant ongoing support for biomedical research undermines the future of science and health in our nation and threatens a strategic driver of the economy. The call to action is clear: The research community must increase advocacy, develop novel research partnerships, and create new opportunities for young researchers.
Read the full op-ed here.