Tag Archives: elections
With the exception of the December run-off in Louisiana and final tallies in a few very close contests, we know the basic political landscape for the next two years. The change is greater than many analysts predicted, although it is not a surprise that the House and the Senate will both be Republican-controlled for the first time in eight years. What does this mean for U.S medical progress and scientific discovery generally? According to our experts at Research!America’s post-election briefing hosted by the AAAS this morning, we can expect some highs and lows in both the “lame-duck” and the next appropriations cycle, with the first seven months of the new year being the limited window of opportunity before most attention turns to the presidential election. Guest speaker David Hawkings, CQ Roll Call senior editor, provided a synopsis of exit polling and voter turnout, which reflected the public’s discontent with the White House and Congress, a continued emphasis on economic concerns, and even splits between Republicans and Democrats on just about every other issue, a combination of factors that doesn’t bode well for bipartisanship generally, much less regular order or major policy changes. In a panel moderated by Rebecca Adams of CQ HealthBeat, Research!America Chair John Porter, Vice Chair Mike Castle, board member Kweisi Mfume and Bart Gordon, all distinguished former Members of Congress, offered predictions on how — or indeed whether — the new Congress will assign a high priority to research moving forward. Congressman Gordon lamented the fact that post-election op-eds and news articles about the agendas of both parties do not mention R&D; there is clearly much more work ahead of us. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
If you haven’t already heard, “Throwback Thursday” is a weekly social media activity that celebrates unforgettable moments in our lives. Users of Facebook, Twitter or Instagram draw inspiration from old photos of family and friends or landmark events, and talk about them, accompanied by the hashtag #TBT. Wouldn’t it be great if today’s #TBT includes reflections on the impact of medical and health research on our lives and those of our loved ones — especially today, with the mid-term elections coming right up, with so much at stake for future generations?
Consider how far we’ve come in medicine. This week marks the 100th birthday of Dr. Jonas Salk, who gifted us with a polio vaccine. An article in The Guardian detailing Dr. Salk’s determination to eradicate this debilitating condition gives us plenty to reflect upon. Most people my age lived with the threat of polio and knew people with the disease. Another “throwback” is the conversion of HIV/AIDS from a death threat to a manageable chronic disease. In the throes of public fears about Ebola, there are echoes of AIDS. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
Ebola remains in the news. In the midst of the demoralizing finger pointing that seems to have taken the place of unity of mission that ought to characterize our nation, we are occasionally reminded that science is a problem solver. That’s a useful message to convey if we hope to keep the current politicization from worsening. But more of us have to speak out. Don’t stand on the sidelines when you could make a difference at this important time when people are paying much more attention to research than usual.
With the election only a little over a week away, take the time to ask candidates a question or two. Email or tweet in questions to debates and contact campaigns via social media. You might talk about Ebola, keeping your request in the moment. But consider, too, that your candidates’ views on investing in medical progress may be influenced by yesterday’s news about the federal deficit. The deficit is $483 billion, or 2.8 percent of GDP — its lowest level since 2007. Reasons cited include lower unemployment, higher tax revenues and stable government spending. Still, the budget gap forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to widen again as an aging population leads to more spending on Social Security and health care. It isn’t surprising that rising health care costs are cited as a force behind projected future deficits. What is surprising is that our nation doesn’t have a plan to harness research as a means of responsibly reducing health spending. You will hear more from us about advocating for a national plan to address this and other solutions only science can provide. Continue reading →
Letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley published in the Omaha World Herald.
This is in response to a Midlands Voices essay (Finish the job, fund medical research, Sept. 25). The authors’ articulate case for robust and sustained investments in lifesaving research represents the interests of all Americans who await cures, as well as better treatments and prevention of Alzheimer’s, autism, cancer and diabetes and more.
Many Americans believe that elected officials are not doing enough to combat deadly diseases, as they repeatedly cut funding and fail to enact policies that stimulate rather than stifle research. Two-thirds of our fellow citizens say it’s important for candidates running for office to assign a high priority to funding medical research, according to polling commissioned by Research!America.
With the midterm elections approaching, now is the right time to ask congressional candidates whether they would set a high priority on research conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Creighton University School of Medicine and research institutions around the country. Ask Your Candidates, a national voter education initiative, gives voters in Nebraska a simple way to engage candidates and learn more about their positions on assuring medical progress.
Dear Research Advocate,
By far the most expensive, and arguably one of the most divisive, election seasons in history is behind us. A lot of money was spent to find out that Americans continue to hold divergent views on many issues. We heard very little about research during the election because, in most ways, it is not a divisive issue; support is both bipartisan and grounded in common sense. The problem is that it can be taken too much for granted. At a time when Americans are looking for an end to standoff politics and want action on things we can feel good about as a nation, prioritizing research for health can be the perfect healing issue — something we can all be proud of. But let’s be clear: Action to prioritize research will only happen if we speak out to put it in the spotlight as policy makers regroup to address the fiscal cliff. We need to convince policy makers that prioritizing research is the smart thing to do as well — smart for job creation and to drive the economy, smart for assuring our global competitiveness, smart for patients, and smart for maximizing innovations that will save lives and drive down the cost of health care.
We must unite and speak with one voice that we need cures, not cuts! If you are not already on board our week of advocacy November 12-16, I encourage you to add your organization to our list of partners and engage your networks to participate in the various strategies that are planned, including a call-in day, a day for visits to district offices, an email-in day, and a Hill day entailing visits to a number of DC offices. All these strategies are supported by an inside-the-Beltway advertising campaign designed to get maximum attention. Click here to see the latest schedule of events for the week ahead. If you would like to sign up for the Hill day, have other events that you would like to include in the calendar, or would like more information, contact Ellie Dehoney at email@example.com. As an important part of this effort, we are circulating a sign-on letter urging Congress to prioritize research in a deal averting sequestration or any other plan for addressing the deficit. Read the full letter here, and contact Jordan Gates at firstname.lastname@example.org for an updated list of cosigners and/or to sign on. The deadline is fast approaching — be sure to sign today!
Post-election, it is instructive to take a look at the responses of various candidates who responded to Your Candidates–Your Health, our voter education initiative. I recommend taking a quick look at President Obama’s responses here, noting his commitment to doubling funding for federal research agencies. As a sampling of other responses take a look at those of Rep. Dr. Dan Benishek (R-MI), who held his seat, here. In Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy won a seat in the 4th District – judging from his responses here, he will be one of our new champions. Medical research champion Brian Bilbray (R-CA) is locked in a not-yet-called election in San Diego. For more on what this election means, be sure to attend our post-election event on November 15th.
I have had the chance to talk about the post-election prospects for research as they impact all the elements of the research enterprise on BioCentury This Week. This program can be viewed here. Maybe you will watch it with a copy of the latest (tomorrow’s) issue of Science magazine in hand. In the lead editorial, AAAS CEO Dr. Alan Leshner and I urge the science community — as individuals as well as through their institutions and associations — to speak out now to Congress or face the decline of research in this nation. This is not a time to hold back! As you reach out, make use of resources on the website for the Week of Advocacy, www.saveresearch.org, including op-ed and letter-to-the editor templates, sample tweets and a new fact sheet on the economic impact of NIH. There are also links to many extraordinary resources produced by FASEB, UMR, AAAS, Ad Hoc and many other organizations. We thank you all for uniting in saying to Congress and the administration: WE NEED CURES, NOT CUTS!
A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: New Poll – Likely Voters Say to Congress: Stay in Session, Avoid Taking Us Over the Fiscal Cliff
Dear Research Advocate,
To call attention to the unintended consequences of the sequester, we held a press briefing today in partnership with United for Medical Research. Two Members of Congress who are still in town, Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA), spoke about the high priority the nation must place on NIH and about the usefulness of data from a new national public opinion poll showing that 51% of Americans say that across-the-board cuts are not the right way to reduce the deficit. To see more poll results for use in your advocacy, click here. Other speakers this morning spoke about what’s at stake for everyone who cares about the research enterprise: patient hopes for cures delayed; industries unable to create new jobs and drive innovation in frustration about U.S. policies and lack of predictability; young scientists becoming discouraged and accepting offers to work in other countries – countries that have made research a clear priority. All of this further burdens our national deficit – we need research to combat the rising cost of health care by delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s and a host of other diseases. As Rep. Markey said, it will take high energy and coordination to get our message of research as a priority heard during the lame-duck session. You will be hearing more from us about how to assure that happens, but in the meantime, don’t forget that there is an important election going on (see below).
First a quick recap of what sequestration means, according to a new OMB report. Most agencies would be hit with an 8.2% cut – NIH alone would lose $2.5 billion in 2013! It is still unclear what level of discretion agency heads would have in carrying out these cuts. Losses at the CDC would be $464 million, the FDA would lose $318 million, and the NSF would be cut by $577 million. See our new one-pager with the latest data.
There is an additional dimension to the FDA cut that should be of significant concern to all advocates for medical progress. Part of the cut diverts industry-supplied user fees into deficit reduction. Those fees are paid by industry for the express purpose of ensuring FDA has the resources to review new medicines and medical devices on a timely basis. The precedent of playing bait and switch with user fees is a dangerous one, particularly since these fees are voluntary. Why should the drug and device industries agree to pay user fees in the future knowing that still more time will be lost in approvals – and patients will be forced to wait longer for new treatments and cures. We must work together to address it.
We all need to do our part to make sure the media is covering all the aspects of the threat of sequestration, making it more evident to all Americans just what is at stake. We’ve already seen National Journal release an article about our new polling data. The Atlantic released a story about how sequester would impact science budgets, citing another recent article from ScienceInsider. The Scientist also reported on the story, quoting Ellie Dehoney, our VP for policy and programs. This week, the Rochester (MN) Post-Bulletin reported how the cuts at NIH could impact the Mayo Clinic, a Research!America member. For those of you that may have contacts with local or national media, now is the time to let them know about the impact where you live.
We are only a month and half away from the election. We know from many of our members and partners that they are calling/writing/emailing campaigns to urge participation in the Your Candidates –Your Health voter education initiative. Please join the momentum and help drive the campaign … we don’t have much time left to make it clear to candidates that it isn’t only lobbyists and professional advocates (people like us at Research!America) who care about research and want them to talk about it. Every candidate should be hearing from hundreds of concerned stakeholders. Make sure you are in that number!
Demonstrations of the value of NIH and NSF research will soon be honored by Research!America member FASEB. Submit events, exhibits or web-based outreach that highlight the value that research agencies deliver and compete for a cash prize! For details, click here.