Tag Archives: innovation
Majority of Americans Believe Another Government Shutdown Likely in Coming Months; Last One Harmful to Medical Research
New National Poll Reveals Many Respondents Predict China will Surpass U.S.
in Science and Innovation by 2020
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—December 3, 2013—Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans say it’s likely there will be another government shutdown in the months ahead as Congress continues to debate deficit and budget issues, according to a new national public opinion poll commissioned by Research!America and the American Society of Hematology. This sentiment is shared across party affiliations: Democrats (66%), Republicans (65%) and Independents (65%). There is also consensus across party lines that government dysfunction has consequences. A majority of Americans (57%) say the shutdown in October caused significant harm to many government-funded programs including medical research, defense and education. Democrats (68%) and about half of Republicans (49%) and Independents (51%) agree.
On the topic of sequestration, a plurality (44%) says Congress must tackle tax and entitlement reform to reduce the deficit instead of continuing the 10 years of across-the-board cuts; another 16% say sequestration is not the right way to reduce the deficit. Less than a quarter (23%) believe the across-the-board cuts are a way of ensuring that many government programs share the pain, and 17% say they’re not sure. In general, 62% of Americans say they’re concerned about the long-term effects of sequestration on advances in health care such as the development of new drugs and other treatments.
“Our poll demonstrates uneasiness among many Americans about the ramifications of deep spending cuts to programs that are critical to our health and well-being,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “Americans want Congress to reach a budget deal that protects medical and health research, at least in part because of concern that our nation is at risk of losing our global leadership position in science and innovation.” Continue reading →
Letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
By visiting a University of Pennsylvania research facility last week, Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) underscored his commitment to making research and innovation an immutable national priority (“Scientists reeling from budget cuts,” Oct. 24). Adequately supported, research will allow us to overcome major health threats and drive the economy.
Americans have taken notice that research support is waning and, in addition, say they are concerned that officials in Washington are not paying enough attention to deadly diseases, polling done for our nonprofit advocacy alliance, Research!America, shows. If elected officials aren’t paying attention, who will lead the charge to assure robust funding for research now and in the future? Too many lives hang in the balance if we take medical progress for granted. Cures and treatments for deadly and disabling diseases can’t wait out nine more years of sequestration.
Dear Research Advocate:
After 16 costly, wasteful days, the government has been funded through January 15 at post-sequestration, FY13 levels — hardly adequate for providing the solutions the American public awaits. A bicameral, bipartisan budget committee has been charged to develop a long-term deficit reduction plan by December 13. If these marching orders sound familiar, they should: We’ve been down this road before, only this time sequestration isn’t the threat at the end, it’s embedded in the negotiations. As tempting as it is to give in to brinksmanship fatigue and just tune out the process, advocates must seize the opportunity to make sure our issue remains front and center, that it becomes impossible for lawmakers to ignore. Sequestration must go; research and innovation must be an immutable national priority, supported at the level of scientific opportunity that will allow us to overcome health challenges and continue to drive the economy.
We are pursuing every opportunity to make the case on behalf of our alliance. Yesterday, I was privileged to join an impressive group of speakers, including Leon Panetta, at a “stop the madness and do your job” press conference sponsored by the Campaign to Fix the Debt. Among the strong points emphasized by former Secretary Panetta, who also served as White House chief of staff, congressman and OMB director, was a call for long-term — he suggested five years — thinking and budgeting for non-defense discretionary spending. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
What does the current political impasse in Washington have in common with deadly or disabling diseases? They will not cure themselves, and the harm escalates until the “patient” gets expert treatment. There is no place for miracle cures or wishful thinking. The solution isn’t what a given individual or party wants it to be, it’s what solves the problem. Right now, it’s by no means clear what or who will solve the problems — which now include the debt ceiling as well as the lack of funding to run the government. Fasten your seat belts for more turbulence between now and October 17th.
You may have heard that the House passed a bill yesterday to fund NIH, along with several other stand-alone appropriation bills (funding it at an unacceptably low level, I might add — below FY12 levels). Beyond the fact that this piecemeal, slow-walking avoidance tactic of finding a solution to the government shutdown is dead on arrival in the Senate and the White House, this “Sophie’s Choice,” cherry-picking approach to better health has no place in a functioning research and innovation ecosystem, and we spoke out against it. That said, it was gratifying that NIH was singled out as publicly popular and good to see the possibility of new champions emerging who recognize the importance of NIH funding during the floor debate on the bill. But make no mistake, had we and other advocates supported this ill-conceived measure, we would have been supporting the decline of science in this nation. Continue reading →
By Bart Peterson, JD, senior vice president of corporate affairs and communications at Lilly
I recently had a wonderful opportunity to address the National Health Research Forum, hosted by Research!America. As you may know, this important forum brings together leaders from the public and private sectors to discuss pressing matters that affect the future of research and development in our country.
As I mentioned in my speech, from 2000-2007 I had the honor of serving as the mayor of Indianapolis. Although Indianapolis has a solid economic base, I often wondered how other cities in my home state would fare in the headwinds of diverse economic challenges. Indiana is dotted with cities of fewer than 100,000 people all built up around manufacturing – cities that lost their manufacturing facilities to a shifting economy and an increasingly competitive global marketplace. What was going to be the future of these cities? Would they be on the map 50 years from now?
But that said, there were some Indiana cities of the same size that I never worried about at all. I didn’t worry about South Bend or West Lafayette or Bloomington. These are cities of 100,000 people or less, but they are home to the University of Notre Dame, Purdue University, and Indiana University. Continue reading →
A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley- Warning: A government shutdown could be dangerous to your health
Dear Research Advocate:
Congress is on the brink of forcing a government shutdown on Tuesday, October 1. The implications of a shutdown are being subsumed by coverage of the political theater taking place. That is an injustice to Americans, who will be affected. History is illustrative on this point.
During the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns, the NIH turned away new patients at the Clinical Center. Research studies housed at federal institutions ceased for the duration of the shutdown; researchers and leaders of industry, academia as well as in government agencies were unable to plan effectively, wasting time and money; the CDC was forced to stop disease surveillance programs, leaving us unacceptably vulnerable to emerging health threats and even pandemics; NSF could not release grant funds, resulting in a backlog of thousands of proposals, and those were just a few of numerous effects. Compounding the impact this time around is the costly toll that sequestration — on top of a decade of stagnant funding — has already taken in undermining the promise of research and innovation.
A recent New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman that was published in other newspapers underscored for me exactly how high the stakes are right now, and a Roll Call op-ed by Morton Kondracke provides additional context. These two voices are prominent among this week’s sampling from an increasing number of informed individuals who are articulating what all the trends show: the US is on a path to scientific, and potentially general, decline. Add to this that the US is already ranked far below where we should and aspire to be in health indicators. The question is: why are these twin realities not receiving more attention from our elected officials? Too few Americans are demanding common sense from Washington; please raise your voice louder and longer, and do it now. Then urge everyone in your network to do the same. Help us deliver this message to your members of Congress — we want #curesnotcuts! Continue reading →
Research!America’s National Health Research Forum — held September 12 at the Newseum’s Knight Conference Center in Washington, DC — examined the current and future state of research to improve health. This year’s theme was “Straight Talk about the Future of Medical and Health Research.” Three expert panels delved into different aspects of the research ecosystem.
Research!America’s president and CEO, Mary Woolley, and chair, The Honorable John Edward Porter, opened the program. Porter introduced Bart Peterson, JD, senior vice president of corporate affairs and communications at Lilly who delivered a brief keynote speech.
“We developed an innovation ecosystem, and that ecosystem requires sound public policy. From the private sector perspective, that includes solid intellectual property protection; a fair, rigorous, transparent regulatory system; a market system of health care delivery and pricing that offers choice for patients and health care providers,” Peterson said. “But the public sector has a role far beyond just producing sound public policy … Public funding for research, which is so threatened today, is absolutely critical to the future and we care about that as much from the private sector perspective as anybody else does.”
The first panel, focusing on biomedical research and development, was moderated by journalist Eleanor Clift of Newsweek and the Daily Beast and featured John Crowley, president and CEO of Amicus Therapeutics and a patient advocate; William Hait, MD, PhD, global head of R&D at Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Margaret Hamburg, MD, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and Peterson. The discussion centered on innovation within the pharmaceutical industry and the relationship between companies and regulators. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
Last week, I wrote about the international trade deficit our country faces. This week, I’d like to focus on the budget deficit. From 2003 to 2011, Medicare and Medicaid spending grew 74% while our economy only grew 35%. With that kind of differential, no government can balance its budget. We need research to address disabling and costly illnesses, but that won’t be enough in and of itself to bridge the gap. We also need tax and entitlement reform that preserves needed services, squeezes out waste and inefficiency (by the way, that’s why we must also fight to protect health economics research, health services research and other research that optimizes health care financing and delivery) and promotes pro-innovation tax changes that are designed to sustain a prosperous nation.
One vocal advocate for a long-term view of the steps our nation must take to secure human and economic progress, including committing to ample and stable public support for medical research, is The Honorable John Porter, Research!America chair and former U.S. representative. He recently penned an op-ed published on CNN.com and elsewhere titled “A do-nothing Congress isn’t healthy.” Mr. Porter makes it clear that we must “view research through the prism of future generations” to properly set a legislative course towards prosperity and good health, and we must not delay. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has reclassified research and development costs from an “expense” to an “investment” when calculating GDP. We think Members of Congress should do the same. Common sense tells us R&D is an investment, not an expense; in general conversation we all talk about R&D as an investment, but it isn’t accounted for that way on the federal books. The arguments we’ve been making are now further bolstered by the BEA’s decision. Spread the word!
One hundred and sixty five university presidents and chancellors, representing all 50 states, have called on the president and Congress to reverse the pending “innovation deficit” in an open letter published last week in Politico before the August recess. With more than half of the economic growth in the U.S. since WWII attributable to innovation — largely due to the nation’s commitment to higher education and federally supported research — our society and our economy are at risk if we continue on today’s trajectory.
These are arguments to use as we work to keep research and innovation in the conversation during the August recess. We have launched a reprise of our social media campaign using the hashtag #curesnotcuts. Please take part, so that policy makers, at home in their districts this month, get the message loud and clear that Americans want medical research to be protected from indiscriminate cuts; so they hear that research and innovation require committed, robust investment. Earlier this week, I was on “Radio Smart Talk” on WITF-FM, a Pennsylvania NPR affiliate. During that show I spoke about the damaging effect of the sequester and fielded questions from listeners. When making your case, you might find it useful to pull from those radio soundbites or from the points we contributed to an editorial that appeared in the The (Newark, NJ) Star-Ledger. Continue reading →
By Jeffrey Harris, founder and Managing Partner of Harris Search Associates, an IIC members Partners firm where he leads the firm’s Higher Education, Academic Medicine and General Management practices.
With our practice focused on identifying and attracting leaders to support the growth of clients in the areas of research, science, engineering, academic medicine and commercial enterprises, active involvement in Research!America allows us to remain current with landscape of change taking place in international research. We value our membership in Research!America because its focus helps create a critical mass advocacy that alone we could never have.
Much of our work is centered on the active recruitment of researchers and research administration from around the world that shapes the advancement of academic medicine and medical research. We view health and medical research as the leading agent for discoveries, inventions and innovations that transform lives and communities.
We are in the talent business. We assist universities, medical centers and other research organizations attract the very best minds to administer and undertake research that accelerate discoveries, new inventions, and create the innovations that advance the health and well-being of billions of people.
In recent years, we have helped recruit vice chancellors and vice presidents of research for major universities, endowed professorships in diabetes research and medical imaging, administrators to ensure the protection of human subjects of research and chief information officers who provide critical IT infrastructure and support. And, we are reassured by the availability of outstanding individuals from America and elsewhere in the world with the intellect, experience, and skills required for contemporary research. Continue reading →
Op-ed by The Honorable John Edward Porter, Research!America Chair and former U.S. Representative (1980 – 2001) published in McClatchy-Tribune newspapers, including the Great Falls Tribune, News & Observer, Times Herald Record and Billings Gazette.
The health of Americans and future generations is at risk. This seems incredulous given our track record in medical discoveries that improved health care and saved lives over the years. But our nation’s research ecosystem is now in a precarious state as a result of federal policies and proposals that continue to undermine medical innovation.
Sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts for federal agencies, is a self-inflicted wound on our country and the pain is acutely felt by patients who cannot afford unnecessary delays in the development of new therapies and cures for their illnesses.
In short, the entire country is hurting and as much as we would like to believe medical progress will continue unabated, we must accept the inevitable consequence of sequestration and other federal actions that muzzle research and innovation – needless deaths, economic decline and challenges to our global competitiveness.
The current political environment lends itself to ideological battles that ignore national priorities. Those battles are draining the budgets of federal agencies that are critical to the sustainment of basic research and private sector innovation. Medical research, which has received overwhelming bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, is now caught in the crossfire of extreme partisanship and illogical decision-making. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
Budget Uncertainty Deepens
The House Appropriations Committee has postponed this week’s scheduled consideration of the Labor-Health and Human Services (Labor-H) funding measure. A New York Times article indicated that the bill protects NIH funding; but, given how low the overall spending number is for Labor-H, “protected” is most likely interpreted as the NIH being cut less than other agencies, themselves highly valued. The distance between the Senate (passed) and House (estimated) Labor-H appropriations — in excess of 20% — sets the stage for another continuing resolution (CR). What actually does happen next is uncertain, which is why advocacy is essential.
The Devil’s in the Details
There are so many health priorities on the line in the not-yet-official House Labor-H bill. Perennial threats are back on the table, including wholly unjustifiable underfunding of CDC, the elimination of AHRQ and PCORI, a prohibition on funding for health economics research at NIH, and more micromanagement of the NIH as well. If any or all of these issues strikes a chord with you, let us help you write a letter to your representative asking them to represent your views in Congress. Email email@example.com — one of us will get right back to you. Continue reading →
Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley’s Statement on Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Markup of FY14 Bill
July 9, 2013
The Senate subcommittee markup of the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education FY14 spending bill goes a step in the right direction in softening the blow sequestration has dealt to the hopes and expectations of patients and their families. Sequestration’s across-the-board spending cuts have sent no-confidence signals across the full ecosystem of medical research and innovation in the public and private sector. There’s a reason that, according to a recent national public opinion poll commissioned by Research!America, nearly half of Americans (48%) do not believe we are making enough progress in medical research in the U.S. This nation can’t push ahead forcefully with one hand tied behind its back. Our global leadership in research and development is at risk as other countries accelerate investments in research and development and roll out the welcome mat for young scientists unable to secure grants in the U.S. as a result of spending cuts. We commend Senators Tom Harkin and Jerry Moran and members of the subcommittee for their efforts to restore the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, and urge the full committee to do still more. There’s no downside to doing all we can to support research that will help us improve health, drive our economy and contribute to the nation’s security. That’s the track record of the NIH; this is not the time to shortchange it.
By Shaun O’Brien, co-president of the Penn Science Policy Group. O’Brien is a fifth-year immunology graduate student at the Perelman School of Medicine (a Research!America member).
In response to the need to voice the concerns of young biomedical graduates and post-docs over the federal funding climate, graduate student Mike Allegrezza founded the Science Policy Group at the University of Pennsylvania. Over the past 6 months, our group has been involved in advocacy efforts along with examining other specific issues pertaining to careers, graduate education and other hot-button issues.
In terms of advocacy, the group has been very active in opposing sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts for federal agencies, and educating the public about the impacts of sequestration on medical research. In the time leading up to the sequester, our group wrote an op-ed for The Daily Pennsylvanian, had terrific op-ed pieces by Alana Sharp and Ellen Elliot on the group blog, participated in interviews with The Philadelphia Inquirer, and even had Nicole Aiello, a third-year doctoral student at Penn, do an interview with NPR! Continue reading →
A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Help set our nation’s sights high on the Fourth of July
Dear Research Advocate:
Setting our nation’s sights high, rather than watching Rome burn; that’s the advice embedded in a recent op-ed authored by John R. Seffrin, PhD (CEO of the American Cancer Society and Research!America Board Member) and Michael Caligiuri, MD (CEO of the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – James Cancer Center Hospital and Solove Research Institute). The authors advocate establishing a national plan, one that puts political differences aside and focuses on combating deadly and tremendously costly disease.
There is a compelling argument to be made that if our nation wants to sustain a balanced budget, it must deploy a disease moonshot. If our nation wants to protect the health and safety of Americans, lead medical progress instead of abandoning it, and fix the debt, health and medical research must be treated as a top national priority. Advocacy is a path that can take us there, if enough of us travel it and we raise our voices loud enough. Join us next week as we continue our national “#curesnotcuts” social media campaign during the 4th of July Congressional Recess. Check here for more information including sample messages. An article in the Portland Tribune and the ongoing regional radio interviews that I’m conducting over the recess are examples of recent media that effectively frame what’s at stake.The goal is to keep research in the news and in the hearts and minds of our nation’s decision-makers. Continue reading →