Tag Archives: NIH funding
Dear Research Advocate:
This week’s CDC announcement of the worst-case Ebola scenario is staggering. Saying, “Let’s be honest with ourselves …” President Obama addressed the UN this morning on the escalating threat posed by Ebola, urging world leaders to work together to address this truly global crisis. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) program, which received additional funding for Ebola drug development as part of the recently passed continuing resolution (CR), is a terrific example of how the public and private sectors can work together to develop drugs for national and global health threats like Ebola. BARDA provides market incentives so that private sector innovators can work on noncommercial emergencies. It’s a cost-effective strategy since it precludes the need for government to build drug development capacity the private sector already has, and it’s a good reminder that medical and health research is not about government funding, academic research, or private sector R&D. It’s about all of these things and all of us, working together to save lives.
Let’s be honest with ourselves about something else: policies that cripple private sector investment in research are stifling science. One such policy involves the research and development (R&D) tax credit, which – despite historical bipartisan support – expired at the end of 2013 and has not been reinstated. Businesses of all sizes across a wide swath of scientific sectors rely on predictable, annual extensions of this tax credit (not that annual extensions are ideal; Congress would also be wise to finally make this credit permanent). Please consider sending a message to your representatives about the importance of reinstating and enhancing the R&D tax credit. Here are two good resources, one nationwide quantitative analysis from the National Association of Manufacturers and one qualitative account of the effects on businesses in Pennsylvania. Members of Congress must work together and quickly upon their return to Washington after the election to not only reinstate the R&D tax credit, but to enhance its reach and effectiveness. And they must pass an appropriations package that recommits to scientific innovation. Note I use the word “must,” not “should.” When one assumes the role of leader, displaying leadership should not be an option.
And let’s be honest that we are under-investing in our federal research agencies. Determined to alter this state of affairs, Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY-26), along with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), recently introduced the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act in the House. The congressman is using some of his district work period/campaigning season to tour institutions that receive NIH funding in his district. If only more incumbents and challengers followed his example! Rather than despairing that there aren’t more like Mr. Higgins, now is the time to work toward the day that there will be! Candidates who hear voters like you speak passionately now about the importance of advancing medical progress are more likely to become champions for research when they enter Congress next January. Personal stories about why research matters in your life and in your community make for some of the most persuasive advocacy tools.
Let’s be honest that along with personal stories, data truly is important (my advice: tell your story first, after that, add data). Consider the new easy-to-use district-level federal research funding fact sheets from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). These local, by-the-numbers summaries provide information about the number of grants received in nearly 400 congressional districts from the NIH, NSF, DOE Office of Science, and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative in the Department of Agriculture and are useful additions when making your case for research. We urge you to share this data as well as your commitment to voter education with five of your friends and family! Join us in the “5 this Fall” campaign on social media.
Final note of honesty about social media … it works! Think “Ice Bucket Challenge” and think about the new ACT for NIH campaign, which is using “selfies” as a way to remind voters and policymakers that research is for everyone, leading to better lives for ourselves, our friends and our loved ones. Reaching an ever-expanding audience via social media is critical. I hope you’ll join Act for NIH by sharing a selfie on social media with the hashtag #ACT4NIH.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org — one of us will get right back to you. Continue reading →
Op-ed by Abigail Schindler, PhD, postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and co-leader of the Seattle Forum on Science Ethics and Policy published in The Seattle Times.
When I think about not being a scientist anymore my heart hurts. But sadly, due to continued budget cuts to biomedical research, within the next few years that is most likely exactly what I will be — no longer a scientist, no longer a researcher searching for cures for disease.
And I am not alone. The number of young scientists being forced out of basic biomedical research in the United States is increasing at an alarming rate, and when this next generation of scientists leaves, it is not coming back.
Like me, these are early career scientists trained in the United States by U.S. tax dollars. We are scientists whose life goal has been to one day have our own research program at an academic institution committed to the search for breakthroughs and cures. Yet because of these budget cuts, catchphrases such as the “brain drain” are proving true. This is a bad omen for U.S. global leadership in biomedical research and the future health and wellness of our nation.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the nation’s premier biomedical research agency and the leading supporter of biomedical research in the world. Despite numerous public polls showing strong support among Americans for government funding of basic biomedical research, NIH’s budget was cut by $1.5 billion this year, or 5 percent, from $31 billion. Continue reading →
By William (Bill) R. Brinkley, Ph.D., TAMEST’s 2012 President
Sometimes you find luck sitting by your side at the most opportune of moments. For example, what would you do if you suddenly found yourself seated next to a key member of the U.S. Congress on a two and a half hour flight to Washington, D.C.? Be prepared, it could happen to you!
If you are a frequent traveler like me, you probably prefer to read, daydream or sleep on most flights. But what would you do if you suddenly recognized that your seat mate was a VIP—say, a key member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives? You might recognize it as a terrific opportunity to put in a good word for particular issues of great importance to you or society. Say for instance, an increase in funding for biomedical research or pending legislation for another cause that might impact your future and that of your co-workers and colleagues.
This actually happened to me a few years ago as a biomedical researcher and president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) advocating for a campaign to double the funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At the time, I was traveling to Washington, D.C. frequently to visit key members of the legislature to encourage support for the “doubling” as it came to be known. One key member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Tom DeLay was thought to be a hopeless holdout—but a key individual to get on our side. As the Majority Whip, DeLay earned the nickname “The Hammer” for his enforcement of party discipline in close votes and his reputation for wreaking political vengeance on opponents. After making numerous unsuccessful attempts to get an audience with DeLay, I finally gave up! Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
I invite you to join me in speaking out during the Memorial Day congressional recess (May 27-31) as part of a social media campaign using the hashtag #curesnotcuts. Our goal is to continue to position research and innovation to improve health where it belongs: as a fundamental national priority that Americans can count on because their elected representatives rank it so highly. In our social media campaign, each day of the recess has a specific theme that can be customized with your information and patient/researcher stories. We have made it easy to get involved: click here to see sample social media messages, a list of selected congressional offices and their Twitter handles, and other resources. Also during Memorial Day recess: the first of several opportunities to participate in open meetings NIH is holding as planning of the BRAIN Initiative goes forward. You can participate in person or by phone. Learn more here.
The House Appropriations Committee has released its 302(b) allocations, setting funding levels for all 12 subcommittees. In a clear calculation that other appropriations bills can be passed at flat or even increased funding levels, one was singled out to absorb the lion’s share of the pain. The Labor-HHS subcommittee, which funds NIH, CDC and AHRQ, was allocated funding 18.6% below its final FY13 number — which already included the FY13 sequestration cut! It is estimated that if this allocation were signed into law, $5.38 billion would be cut from NIH and more than $1 billion from the CDC. While, at the end of the day, a cut of that magnitude is unlikely, the fact that it is even being suggested is of great concern. Think about the classic pattern of “splitting the difference” between House and Senate budgets: If an extremely low number is used by the House, any “compromise” could result in a very steep cut. Research!America is part of a large coalition of more than 900 health, education and workforce training organizations that has sent a letter expressing opposition to the proposed cuts. Please draw on the text to bang the drum loudly on this point to your elected officials! (The committee overseeing FDA fell within “standard” funding allocation levels, but “standard” does not mean adequate. Remember that all federal funding is subject to sequestration, and even without sequestration FDA is grossly underfunded today, given the breadth and complexity of its critical mission.) Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate,
Senators Casey (D-PA) and Burr (R-NC), recently honored with our Whitehead Award for Research Advocacy, have joined forces again with a bipartisan letter calling for a strong commitment to NIH funding in FY 14. Please take a moment now to urge your senators to sign on to this letter. And say thank you to Senators Burr and Casey for being champions for research!
In past letters, I’ve written about attempts by Congress to micromanage and in some cases, attack critical components of our nation’s research portfolio. The social sciences have been targeted time and time again despite the immense value of these programs and the return on investment they represent. In response, the NSF has released a report, “How Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research Addresses National Challenges.” It will prove useful in your advocacy for these important avenues of research. Next week, COSSA invites you to a briefing on the role social sciences play in improving our response to national disasters – a topic that seems more relevant than ever in light of recent events.
Meanwhile, there has been yet another blow to our nation’s public health capacity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has recently been in the news as a first responder to the emergence in China of a human strain of a potentially deadly flu previously found only in animals, reportedly received another fiscal year 2013 funding cut. This $374 million cut, the result of a decision by the Administration to execute a shift in funding away from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, is just the most recent of a series of devastating budget cuts to CDC, an agency with a broad and important mission held back by a tiny budget. The nation at large won’t notice the diminution of CDC until the next public health disaster strikes home; and by then, it could be too late. For more information and suggestions for advocacy, contact the Campaign for Public Health Foundation. Continue reading →
As we continue to fight sequestration, Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) have called for a strong commitment to NIH funding in FY 2014. We must urge our senators to sign-on to the bipartisan Casey-Burr letter right away.
As you know, the stakes for research funding have never been higher. Research is a critical national investment that will save and improve lives while growing our economy. Make sure your senators get the message. Remember to share this alert on Facebook and with everyone in your network. Click here to contact your Senators today!
Dear Research Advocate,
The President’s budget is out and it’s a mixed bag. First, the good news. NSF was given a significant funding boost, $593M over 2012 levels, NIH funding was increased by $470M, and AHRQ, via budget trade-offs, looks to have been boosted by $64M. The increases are from FY12 to FY14, since the President’s budget replaces sequestration in a different way than either Congressional body (see more below). The not so good news in the President’s budget is that other health research agencies did not fare well. The CDC budget was cut deeply, especially prevention programs. FDA was essentially flat -funded. And entitlement-reform may pose a challenge to innovation.
The different ways the three budgets, President, Senate and House, deal with sequestration is symptomatic of the continuing failure to reach agreement on anything resembling comprehensive legislation, including so-called “grand bargains.” The fact that there is so much attention to medical research in the President’s budget, as well as on the floor of the Senate recently, and from a number of Members of Congress, speaks to the progress the research advocacy community is making in bringing medical research to the forefront. But success to date has not diminished the need for heightened advocacy for public health and social sciences research, nor the imperative of carefully evaluating the full consequences of changes to entitlements. The three budgets deal with entitlements in different ways, but with similar ill-effect when it comes to innovation. There is no question that we need tax and entitlement reform, and no question that sequestration must be eliminated; however, we cannot thrive as a nation or succeed at deficit reduction if entitlement reforms come at the expense of private sector innovation. See our statement on the President’s budget here.
Speaking of social science research — so clearly under fire — it is not too late to RSVP to a Capitol Hill briefing we are co-hosting tomorrow on economic research. There is a terrific lineup of speakers.
I know many of you attended the Rally for Medical Research on Monday here in Washington, a coalition effort led by the AACR. Thousands of like-minded research advocates and a wonderful array of speakers, including our board chair, The Honorable John Porter, gathered to crank up the volume for research. In his remarks, Mr. Porter urged advocates to get fighting mad or we risk continued cuts from Congress. Review his remarks here; then, take a moment to participate in the Rally’s on-going text messaging campaign to urge Congress to assign a high priority to medical research. You can view press coverage of the event and the full list of speakers. During the event, social media attention was strong — messaging trended #2 globally on Twitter. That’s the level of volume and attention we must continue to maintain if we want to see a happy ending to budget negotiations. Please do your part!
More than 50 Nobel laureates are doing their part; they have joined forces to send a letter to Congress urging them to fund, rather than freeze or cut, research and development. In the letter, the Laureates cite their deep concern over reduced funding levels and the negative impact this will have on the next generation of scientists and ultimately, upon our nation’s economic vitality. It’s a good reminder that the full science community is in this battle together. Take a moment now to echo their message by urging your representative to sign on the Markey-McKinley letter calling for a $1.5B boost to NIH funding. Click here to see the list of current signers. If your representative is on the list, be sure to thank them for standing up for research. If they haven’t signed-on yet, click here to send them a message.
On Monday, we released our latest national poll, focused on chronic pain and drug addiction. Surprisingly, only 18% of the poll respondents believe chronic pain is a major health problem, yet two-thirds know someone who has sought relief from chronic pain. Huge majorities are concerned about abuse or misuse of prescription medications; the need for better understanding of how to address chronic pain literally cries out for research. You can view our media release here.
Dear Research Advocate,
Glimmers of hope can be found in the dire funding situation we face under sequestration. The continuing resolution (C.R.) funding the government through the end of the fiscal year (September 30) included very small increases for NIH, CDC, NSF and FDA; AHRQ was flat funded. But the fact remains that these increases were overwhelmed by the effect of sequestration, which remains in place and will continue to weigh us down for 10 years unless overturned. Our champions in Congress are speaking out and taking a stand on behalf of research as the budget negotiation proceeds. Reps. McKinley (R-WV) and Markey (D-MA) have co-authored a letter to House appropriators calling for $32 billion for NIH in FY14, a $1.5 billion increase. Take action right away and urge your representatives to sign on! Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) delivered a powerful floor speech highlighting the bipartisan importance of investing in NIH. In the Senate, Sens. Durbin, Mikulski, Moran and Cardin sponsored an amendment to the budget resolution calling for increased investment for biomedical research at the NIH. While this move is largely symbolic, it demonstrates the level of bipartisan commitment of our champions. You can view Senator Durbin’s statement here as well as the Research!America statement. And special thanks are due to Senator Harkin for his effort to provide NIH with a $244 million increase as part of the C.R. His sustained leadership has helped in so many ways to sustain NIH through good times and bad. Read our statement on his amendment here.
Congress is on recess and getting an earful from their constituents. A new public opinion poll shows that people are extremely angry at Congress but don’t see that sequestration is going to be a problem. That’s why it’s important to connect the dots. Hooray for a flurry of articles published in newspapers in Baltimore, Lancaster (PA), Los Angeles and Seattle —all emphasizing the damage being done by sequestration. More are called for! In a pulling-no-punches editorial in Science, Dr. Bruce Alberts lays out his concerns for the future of research, a future that is closely linked to the decisions our elected officials will make over the coming months. He invites responses; you can weigh in.
Many of you may be aware of our upcoming panel discussion on April 8 — Conquering Pain & Fighting Addiction: Policy Imperatives to Combat a Growing Health Crisis — featuring thought leaders on issues relating to pain and addiction. This a critical topic of growing national importance with a major role for research — I hope you can join us. Register here. Earlier in the day, the entire staff of Research!America will join tens of thousands of advocates at the Rally for Medical Research on the steps of the Carnegie Library in Washington, DC. Let’s all join forces that day to drive home the message that research must be a higher national priority.
The following post is an excerpt from a recent op-ed by Harold L. Paz, MD, CEO of Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center; senior vice president for health affairs, Penn State; and dean of the Penn State College of Medicine. You can read the full op-ed, published in several regional papers, here. The Penn State College of Medicine is a Research!America member.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is deeply concerned about the impact that sequestration will have on programs that are vital to the health of those we serve, including medical research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
As central Pennsylvania’s only academic health center we have a responsibility to serve our community by producing the next generation of health care professionals and biomedical scientists, discovering new medical knowledge that will improve health, and providing state-of-the-art care for serious or life-threatening conditions. Once sequestration takes effect on April 1, 2013, it will begin to take a toll on our efforts to fulfill those missions. Continue reading →
Statement from Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley on Bipartisan Action Spotlighting NIH Funding
Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley Applauds Bipartisan Action Spotlighting NIH Funding
March 22, 2013
Research!America commends Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) for their vision, their leadership and their commitment to bipartisanship as evidenced by their joint amendment calling for robust investment in medical research. We urge all senators to cosponsor and vote for this significant amendment. The National Institutes of Health funds noncommercial research at universities and other institutions across our nation, research that catalyzes private sector development of new preventative measures, diagnostics, treatments and cures for disabling and deadly diseases. This chain reaction lies behind the myriad medical advances we rely on today and is the path to the continued medical progress we need to overcome Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and other insidious health threats. That these senators came together in support of increased funding for the NIH signals their commitment to saving lives and powering our economy. We hope it will also spur bipartisan action to reverse sequestration, which, if allowed to stand, all but ensures the decline in our nation’s medical research pipeline.
Just released data from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) details the final amount to be cut from federal research program budgets as sequestration goes into effect. The full details are available on the updated Research!America sequestration fact sheet, though previous projections were relatively accurate as compared to these final numbers.
Cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will be higher than previously expected, with a combined loss of $593 million dollars for FY13. That amount is roughly equivalent to ensuring the safety of new medical and biological products at the FDA and programs that focus on prevention of HIV/AIDS at CDC. The National Institutes of Health will lose more than $1.5 billion this year alone, enough to fund three major research programs at the National Cancer Institute. The National Science Foundation will lose $290 million, an amount that would almost fully fund the NSF budget for materials research, which includes studies on biomaterials and metallic nanostructures.
It’s all over the news: The federal government is headed for significant, across-the-board budget cuts. Sequestration, or 10 years of automatic spending cuts, is a self-inflicted consequence passed by Congress, aimed to be a drastic outcome of failing to agree on a federal deficit-reduction package. Some Members of Congress argue that the sequester will not have a significant impact; they claim that the 5.1% cuts made in 2013 are only a drop in the bucket and there is no need to worry. However, the amount of money that the National Institutes of Health will lose, $1.56 billion, could fund the entire National Institute of Mental Health for more than a year. Cuts to the National Science Foundation total $359 million, more than 80% of the entire FY12 budget from NSF for homeland security research, including emergency planning and response. Research!America’s fact sheet on the effects of sequestration on these agencies, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control can be found here.
What will cuts to NIH, NSF and other agencies mean to biomedical and health research?
The NIH and NSF fund the basic science that fuels medical innovation and the health services research that enables smart policy making by all levels of government and by health care providers in support of high-quality health care delivery. The CDC funds an enormous range of research and public health services essential to the basic health and safety of Americans. Cuts to these agencies will compromise medical progress, stymie deficit reduction and render it more difficult to reinvigorate our economy. Cuts to public health funding, which is already inadequate, will degrade the foundation for safe and healthy communities across our nation. In short, these cuts will have dramatic impact on the health of our nation. Polls commissioned by Research!America consistently show that Americans highly value medical research and would even pay higher taxes if they knew the dollars would be devoted to that research. And we will never bend the health care cost curve without medical research to overcome disabling and costly conditions like Alzheimer’s and health services research to identify and evaluate viable and patient-sensitive cost savings strategies.
Finally, cuts to funding for biomedical and health research jeopardize the product of years of investment in our nation’s research capabilities. Those investments have produced the most sophisticated and productive medical research enterprise in the world. If funding declines, so will opportunities for young scientists. So will the capacity for our nation’s researchers to break new ground. So will the pipeline that fuels private sector innovation and jobs.
Think about it: Advances in ongoing and promising medical research will invariably be halted due to a lack of funds for these projects. One such project is ongoing research at Georgetown’s Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, DC. There, researchers have worked for years on a preventative strategy for breast cancer focused on anti-estrogen treatment, and this work is ready to move into clinical trials. Without funding, this lifesaving research could be halted. A study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that the frequency of metastatic breast cancer is on the rise in young women, a troubling trend in light of the threat to biomedical and health research funding.
So what can we do?
Contact your representatives in Congress and tell them how important it is to STOP sequestration! Click here to send an email now.
Sign the petition from AAAS to “Speak Up for Science.”
Share these resources with your professional network, and encourage your peers to speak up for research now!
Research!America Honors Senators Richard Burr and Bob Casey for Strengthening our Nation’s Commitment to Research and Development
Burr and Casey to Receive the Edwin C. Whitehead Award for Medical Research Advocacy at Research!America’s Advocacy Awards Dinner on March 13
Alexandria, Va.–February 6, 2013–Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Casey (D-PA) will receive the Edwin C. Whitehead Award for Medical Research Advocacy for their leadership and strong support of federal and private sector medical research and innovation. Sens. Burr and Casey have worked individually and in a bipartisan manner to promote a robust medical research pipeline in the U.S. and ensure patients receive access to new, safe and effective treatments and technologies on a timely basis.
“Senators Burr and Casey exemplify what it means to be a research champion,” said Research!America Chair John Edward Porter. “They have each devoted their energies to ensuring that federal funding and policies are aligned with the goal of accelerating medical progress, from basic research to private sector discovery to timely patient access. Congressional support for the public and private sector research pipeline is critical to capitalize on recent breakthroughs, maintain our global competitiveness as other nations dramatically ramp up their investments in medical innovation, and fight back against costly, devastating illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease and cancer.”
During their combined 14 years of experience as members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Sens. Burr and Casey have championed legislation to catalyze and improve the research pipeline, and they jointly sponsored a bipartisan letter in support of research conducted by the National Institutes of Health.
Sen. Burr introduced and achieved passage of legislation to establish the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), which uses pioneering research to develop new technologies aimed at diagnosing, preventing and treating, among other conditions, breast cancer and spinal cord injuries. He also introduced the Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Innovation, Efficiency and Timeliness at FDA (Patient’s FDA) Act with Sen. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) to ensure timely patient access to new drugs and medical devices. Sen. Burr’s Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 allows rapid development of certain drugs and vaccines in case of a pandemic or natural disease outbreak.
“I am honored to receive this award, but the people who really deserve it are the hard-working, dedicated and brilliant researchers and scientists in North Carolina and across the country who are making breakthroughs every day that enhance the quality of life and, in many cases, save lives,” said Sen. Burr. “They are the ones we should all be honoring.”
Sen. Casey led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in introducing the Life Sciences Jobs and Investment Act of 2011, legislation that would double the R&D tax credit for life science firms. He also introduced the Creating Hope Act of 2011, a bill to foster the development of research breakthroughs for rare and neglected diseases, such as pediatric cancers and malaria. Last year, he sent a letter to Senate appropriators to inform them of a breakthrough in genetics research and emphasize the importance of maintaining NIH funding.
“I am honored to receive the Edwin C. Whitehead Award for Medical Research Advocacy from Research!America,” said Sen. Casey. ”Pennsylvania is a leader in the area of medical research which is critical to preventing, treating and curing diseases. Medical research is also a field that employs thousands across the state and plays an important role in the Commonwealth’s economy. I believe that it is essential to continue support for medical research because of the potential health benefits for all Americans and the importance of ensuring that our nation remains at the forefront of medical innovation.”
The Whitehead Award will be presented to Sen. Burr and Sen. Casey at Research!America’s 2013 Advocacy Awards dinner on Wednesday, March 13, in Washington, DC. The program honors outstanding individuals and organizations in advocacy for medical, health and scientific research. The Whitehead Award, named in honor of Research!America’s founder, Edwin “Jack” Whitehead, recognizes exemplary leaders, particularly those in public office, who have demonstrated a deep commitment to advancing biomedical and health research as a national priority and who galvanize others in support of science.
Other Advocacy Award winners include Diane Rehm, author and host of WAMU 88.5 and NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show”; John F. Crowley, patient advocate and inspirational entrepreneur, chairman and CEO of Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.; John Mendelsohn, MD, director, Khalifa Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy and former president at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Mark Rosenberg, MD, president and CEO, The Task Force for Global Health; and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
About Research!America’s Advocacy Awards Dinner
The annual Research!America Advocacy Awards program was established in 1996 by the Board of Directors to honor outstanding advocates for medical, health and scientific research. Recognized individuals and organizations are those whose leadership efforts have been notably effective in advancing our nation’s commitment to research. This year the awards event will take place on March 13, 2013, at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC. For more information, visit www.researchamerica.org/advocacy_awards.
About Research America
Research!America is the nation’s largest nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by member organizations representing 125 million Americans. Visit www.researchamerica.org.