Tag Archives: research funding

Statement by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley in Response to President Obama’s FY2016 Budget

We are pleased that the President’s FY16 budget proposal calls for the elimination of sequestration and starts an overdue conversation about better aligning resources for public health and medical progress, given their importance to the American people and to the health of our economy. It is critical that we ramp up initiatives that focus on precision medicine, Alzheimer’s, antimicrobial resistance and other growing health threats, but these investments should supplement, not supplant, the imperative of making up for a decade’s worth of lost ground. We believe that Congress and the White House can, and must, unify behind the vision encapsulated in the bipartisan Accelerating Biomedical Research Act. Medical progress is not just a health imperative, it is a strategic imperative, integral to national security, fiscal stability and economic progress. Leaders on both sides of the aisle clearly appreciate that the time is now to turn ideas into reality. It may be a truism, but where there’s a will, there’s a way. Continue reading →

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Innovation today doesn’t guarantee innovation tomorrow

Dear Research Advocate:

Research!America yesterday released our recommendations for the top five science priorities the new Congress should address in its first 100 days: end sequestration, increase funding for our nation’s research agencies, advance the 21st Century Cures Initiative legislation, repeal the medical device tax, and enact a permanent and enhanced R&D tax credit. See the full press release here. Among these priorities, ending sequestration is the steepest uphill climb – but what a difference it would make for the future of health and the nation’s economy! That’s the focus of this editable message to members of Congress. Please weigh in!

Securing meaningful increases in funding for our federal research agencies will take the same kind of leadership and bipartisan commitment that propelled the FY98 – FY03 doubling of the NIH budget. A recent CQ Healthbeat interview with Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations “Labor-H” Subcommittee, suggests there is reason to hope for just that kind of momentum. During his discussion with CQ Healthbeat reporter Kerry Young, Chairman Cole indicated that he plans to establish an aggressive hearing schedule, with the goal of facilitating the bipartisanship that was long the hallmark of the Appropriations Committee. He said: “If we talk enough, maybe we find some common ground and some unusual alliances and some places where instead of being at one another’s throat, we can actually work together …” Cue research to save lives and combat disability.

Fareed Zakaria writes in the Washington Post that, “federal funding for basic research and technology should be utterly uncontroversial,” and I couldn’t agree more. However, robust federal funding is only a part of the equation. Tax and other policy reform is crucial to the vitality of domestic innovation. In his op-ed, Fareed identifies troubles faced by American start-up companies, with their number trending down alarmingly as they face so many barriers to entry. He notes that yes, American innovation is still a wonder of the world, but it is becoming less and less unique. Innovation today doesn’t guarantee innovation tomorrow. Success in both the public and private sectors relies on updating of creaky national policies to reflect the excitement and potential of 21st century science and technology.

Finally, an issue where change is crucial, but the path to it uncertain: how to prevent the discouragement and flight of still more young would-be super-scientists. Johns Hopkins University president Ronald J. Daniels takes on this issue in the most recent edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see press release here). As he explains, increased competition for grant funding and fewer faculty jobs could well choke off the pipeline of young scientists needed to maintain our nation’s research capacity. Daniels’ perspective is an important contribution to a profoundly complex issue that cries out for resolution. It is likely to be on the 21st Century Cures agenda and receive considerable attention during the aforementioned Labor-H hearings. It would serve the research community well for advocates to come to consensus on solutions rather than wait for solutions to be imposed without their input.

We have a lot of work cut out for us, stakeholders in science and lawmakers alike. But at the end of the day, we are all working in the public’s interest – a starting point for agreement even when we might seem miles apart.

Sincerely,

Mary Woolley

A Worthy New Year’s Resolution for the New Congress

Excerpt of an op-ed by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley published in the Huffington Post

mary-woolley-webAs the new Congress sets priorities, there are strong indications that the political climate is ripe for a surge in science. Bipartisan support for the 21st Century Cures Initiative, a comprehensive study of roadblocks to medical innovation and development of new disease therapies and treatments, is slated to move forward with draft legislation early next year. The measure is expected to address six areas of reform: integrating patients’ perspectives into the regulatory process, modernizing clinical trials, fostering the future of science, investing in advancing research, incentivizing the development of new drugs and devices for unmet medical needs and supporting digital medicine. Research stakeholders ranging from academia to industry to patient groups are working closely with the architects of this initiative, Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), to ensure the measure will remove barriers to getting new treatments and cures to patients more quickly.

There is also bipartisan support to reform tax legislation, a light or heavy lift depending on the tax package. All signs point to a repeal of the medical device tax in the new Congress but the jury is still out on whether the R&D tax credit can be made permanent and ultimately whether Congress is ready to tackle tax and entitlement reform overall. A favorable tax climate and strong investments in research are critical to improving our population’s health, boosting the economy and spurring further private sector innovation. With sustained federal funding at risk in a deficit reduction environment, alternative funding models to augment appropriations should be considered including but not limited to a mandatory trust fund dedicated to steady growth in research.

Read the full op-ed here

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: America can do better

Dear Research Advocate:

The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and the clarion call for equality for all Americans brings to mind the work still to be done to address health disparities. For example, cancer incidence and death rates are significantly higher for African-Americans than for all other ethnic groups, and Hispanic and African-American adults are 1.5 to 2 times more likely to have diabetes than white adults. Our polling shows that nearly 75% of Americans believe it is imperative to conduct research to understand and combat health disparities. As a community of advocates, we need to press policy makers to keep this unacceptable gap in health care and health outcomes in their sights. America can do better.

As September nears, Congress returns to Washington with a looming fiscal debate. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew reports that the debt ceiling will need to be raised earlier than anticipated, possibly as soon as mid-October. The urgency of this deadline takes away any buffer time on which congressional leadership may have hoped to rely. A funding measure for FY14, sequestration, the debt limit, reforms and a government shutdown may well be contenders in the upcoming debate. It will certainly keep advocates for medical and health research busy — fighting sequestration, pushing for greater research funding, pressing for the exemption of user fees from sequestration (should the across-the-board spending cuts remain in place), and even weighing in on the impact of tax and entitlement reform on medical innovation, although it is unlikely that such a reform effort would happen now. Continue reading →

Sequestration cuts millions from university research dollars

Excerpt of an article published by The Salt Lake Tribune on sequestration’s impact to research institutions in Utah.

blogUtah

Paul Fraughton | The Salt Lake Tribune

Carl Thummel was about $200,000 short.

The University of Utah professor of human genetics had already won the money, about one-third of his lab’s annual budget, from the National Institutes of Health. It was due to begin paying out in December — just as the country went off the so-called fiscal cliff.

More than six months later, the money still hadn’t come, the victim of federal budget cuts known as sequestration. So he cut his own salary by 25 percent, as well as his technicians’ pay.

“They’re putting their salaries on the line, and some of them are family breadwinners,” he said in July, staring ahead. “That’s what we’ve got to do.”

Thummel, who studies diabetes, obesity and metabolism at his 10-person lab, wasn’t alone. The U. lost $32 million in research funding in fiscal 2013, dropping from about $393 million to $361 million, due primarily to sequestration. Though Thummel got word this month that his cash would be forthcoming, he said other labs haven’t been as lucky. “Each grant for a small lab is essential. In the past years, two grants was not hard to maintain, but it became more difficult and now it’s very difficult,” he said.

Read the full article here.

Advocacy Opportunities at 40,000 Feet

By William (Bill) R. Brinkley, Ph.D., TAMEST’s 2012 President

Brinkley 2012 PresidentSometimes 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 →

President Obama announces BRAIN Initiative

President Barack Obama unveiled the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative on Tuesday. Described in a White House press release as one of the administration’s “Grand Challenges,” the goal of the initiative is to bring private and public sector research together to accelerate the development and application of technology and research into the function of complex neural networks. President Obama laid the ground work for today’s announcement during his State of the Union address in January, calling for an increased investment in research to achieve “a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race.” Continue reading →

Guest Post: Harold L. Paz, MD, of Penn State College of Medicine

H.L. Paz, MDThe 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 →

Guest Post: Arthur S. Levine, MD of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Arthur S. Levine, MDEveryone understands that it’s necessary to take a hard look at the federal budget and cut costs. The problem with the sequestration is that it recklessly cuts every category of spending across the board at a time when we should maintain critical investments that will pay for themselves in the long run.

One of my roles at the University of Pittsburgh is to advocate for federal investment in biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which administers grants to scientists around the country. About 80 percent of all funding for medical research in American universities comes from the NIH.  One quarter of NIH funding is for research that leads directly and quickly to improved health care and is aimed at answering important questions like whether hormone replacement therapy is safe and effective for all post-menopausal women. Another 55-60 percent is for basic science research to understand biology at the cellular and molecular levels, research that, while often taking years to bear fruit, time and again yields unexpected discoveries—especially ones that lead to drugs and vaccines—with profound implications for human health.

To consider NIH-funded research only as an expense is to completely misunderstand its purpose. The federal government has long supported biomedical and behavioral research because it’s a wise investment that pays great dividends for all Americans.  In addition to improving health and the quality of life, scientific advances spur the economy as private enterprise takes on the commercialization and implementation of our discoveries. A report by the nonpartisan Information Technology and Innovation Foundation recently estimated that sequestration cuts to science would reduce the GDP by $200 billion over the next few years.

Sequestration was designed to be a nonsolution—a fate so objectionable and threatening to both political parties that it would force compromise.  Sadly, it will likely do what it was designed to do—have devastating and crippling effects on our nation for years to come.  Though compromise is still possible, time is short. Unless the president and Congress achieve a mutually agreeable solution that alleviates the worst of these effects in the coming days and weeks, Americans will be robbed of the very significant economic gains and the better and longer lives that result from the nation’s investment in biomedical research.

Arthur S. Levine, M.D.
Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences and Dean,  School of Medicine
University of Pittsburgh

Follow news and updates from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Schools of Health Sciences on their blog. Research!America thanks the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Arthur S. Levine, MD for their contributions to research and for their advocacy in this editorial published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Read the extended editorial here.

One in three seniors dies with Alzheimer’s or dementia

A new report from the Alzheimer’s Association reveals that one in three seniors suffer from some form of dementia or Alzheimer’s by their death. Deaths attributed to Alzheimer’s and dementia have increased 68% from 2000 to 2010.

Harry Johns, president and CEO of the Alzheimer’s Association and Research!America Board member, said in an Alzheimer’s Association release  that “urgent, meaningful action is necessary, particularly as more and more people age into greater risk for developing a disease that today has no cure and no way to slow or stop its progression.”

USA Today reports that the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease is expected to nearly triple by 2050, resulting in an increasing burden on medical costs and caregivers. Currently, there is no way to prevent or slow the progression of Alzheimer’s or other types of dementia.

With growing health care costs consuming the federal budget, policy makers are considering ways to reduce the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. The Alzheimer’s Association predicts that the direct cost of caring for individuals with Alzheimer’s will total more than $200 billion in 2013 alone, with nearly $150 billion of that spending expected to come from Medicare and Medicaid. Increased investments in medical and health research will help improve the treatment and prevention of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

“We have wanted to see a $2 billion commitment to research, because we’ve seen what has happened in diseases like HIV/AIDS when a big financial commitment is made,” said Maria Carrillo, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs at the Alzheimer’s Association, in the article. Over the same 10-year period that saw an increase in Alzheimer’s deaths, HIV/AIDS related deaths decreased 42%, according to the Alzheimer’s Association study.

This report shows that now is not the time to cut back on America’s investment in biomedical and health research. Contact your representatives and urge them to make research for health a higher national priority.

Research!America Board member speaks out against sequestration

As sequestration threatens to obstruct progress in biomedical and health research, members of the research community are continuing to speak out against these across-the-board spending cuts. Research!America Board member Larry Shapiro, MD, dean of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis’, shared his concerns in an article from the Associated Press.

At Washington University in St. Louis and other research institutions across the country, “automatic cuts are causing anxiety among young researchers who are wondering what career options they’ll have if the current economic climate becomes ‘the new normal,’” according to the article.

”This is all that’s being discussed in the hallways and over coffee,” Shapiro told the AP. He added that two genetics researchers recently decided to leave St. Louis and relocate their labs to the United Kingdom in this environment of diminished funding.

“Scientists are passionate about their work, and they’ll go where they have the best opportunity to accomplish it,” Shapiro said in the story.

With reduced funding for young scientists and innovative projects, senior researchers warn that the U.S. will experience a “brain drain,” with promising young scientists heading overseas where funding for research is becoming more abundant. Shapiro isn’t the only academic leader worried about federal funding cuts; read the comments of others in academia in the article.

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: When “kicking the can down the road” is better than the alternative

Dear Research Advocate,

Medical research advocates are being heard by those urging a halt to across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to go into effect March 1; your voices are being picked up in the media and echoed by decision makers. But as the deadline approaches, no progress has been made, with many Members of Congress insisting that sequestration go forward. As much as we, and the public at large, have railed against Congress when it “kicks the can down the road,” this is a time to call for just that! Delaying sequestration would create the opportunity (of course, not the promise) of a “grand bargain” before the continuing resolution ends March 27. (In order to avoid shutting down the government, Congress must act before that date. It may be another case of kick-the-can, extending funding until the end of the fiscal year on September 30.) What advocates must push for right now is to eliminate sequestration in favor of prioritization and pragmatism. Email your representatives, sign this petition from AAAS, and stop sequestration. When you reach out to your representatives, use our revised fact sheet and make sure to highlight how sequester would impact your priorities. For other examples, see the just-released fact sheet on sequestration from The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR) as well as Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s report.

The House subcommittee that sets funding levels for NIH, CDC and AHRQ wants to hear from you! On March 13, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee is holding a public witness hearing. Requests to testify are due by Monday, February 25. This is an excellent opportunity to make your voice heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill. (Members of Research!America, let us know if we can help draft a request letter!)

The New York Times reported Monday that the White House is planning to launch a decade-long project led by the NIH to unravel the core functions of the brain. NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins spoke about the Brain Activity Map on PBS’s Newshour last evening. Scientists are hoping that the project will provide $300 million in funding per year for a decade or more, with the end goal of understanding what goes wrong in the brain and how this leads to some of the most insidious and expensive diseases plaguing Americans and the world. The price tag is daunting, and it will be important to ensure this project doesn’t supplant other critical research, but there is no doubt that cracking the code to the numerous diseases of the brain would be a breathtaking advance in modern medicine.

Speaking of spectacular research, the richest research prize ever has been announced. The winners will receive a prize of $3 million each in recognition of their high impact research. This headline-grabbing announcement helps put faces on science and remind the country of its value, perhaps inspiring young Americans to pursue a career in research. But awards are not enough to stop the onslaught of growing public health threats like Alzheimer’s and other diseases, especially when many policy makers are prepared to allow sequestration to occur. We need to reinvest in our innovative capacity, not cut it off at a time of immense opportunity for health breakthroughs and research-driven economic growth.

Sincerely,

Mary Woolley

Majority of Americans Doubt Congress and White House Can Resolve Budget Problems and Avoid Fiscal Cliff

Poll Reveals Deep Concerns Among Americans about Impact of Spending Cuts to Medical Research

Alexandria, Va.—December 13, 2012—Nearly 60% of Americans are skeptical that Congress and the White House will reach an agreement that will avoid the fiscal cliff, according to a new national public opinion poll commissioned by Research!America.  More than 80% of Republicans, nearly 40% of Democrats and 65% of Independents say they are “not too confident” or “not at all confident” current negotiations will result in a deal.  The findings reveal growing doubt among many Americans that Congress and the Administration will be able to make a deal that would avoid tax increases for most Americans and major funding cuts for federal agencies, including those that are responsible for funding medical research.

“Congress and the Administration must make bold decisions to address our nation’s deficit, but cutting funding for research should not be one of them,” said Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. “We cannot afford to drain the research pipeline as other countries challenge our world leadership in science and innovation.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans (83%) say that medical research is important to reducing health care costs. And an even larger percentage (87%)  believe that it is important that our nation support research that focuses on improving how our health care system is functioning.

Even in a challenging fiscal environment, Americans continue to place a high priority on biomedical and health research. Upon learning that the percentage of government spending allocated for biomedical and health research is roughly 1.5%, almost half of Americans (48%) believed that it was not enough. In fact, 54% would be willing to pay $1 per week more in taxes if they were certain that all of the money would be spent for additional medical research. This comes as no surprise, as more than half (55%) of Americans do not believe that the U.S. is making enough progress in medical research.

“Our polling underscores support for a stronger investment in research — there’s no doubt that people want a cure, sooner rather than later, for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer and so many other diseases and disabilities,” added Woolley. “In a time when difficult decisions have to be made, Americans overwhelmingly believe research and innovation should be prioritized.”

Other poll highlights include:

  • More than three-quarters of Americans (78%) say that it is important that the U.S. work to improve health globally through research and innovation.
  • Nearly 70% of Americans believe that the federal government should increase support for programs and policies that would increase the number of young Americans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
  • 66% of Americans, say they would be willing to share personal health information to advance medical research assuming that appropriate privacy protections were used.
  • 68% of Americans say it’s important that the federal research and development tax credit is made permanent.

The National Public Opinion Poll was conducted online in December 2012 by JZ Analytics for Research!America. The poll had a sample size of 1,000, with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 3.2%. To view the poll, visit: http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/December2012pollslides.pdf

About the National Public Opinion Poll

Research!America began commissioning polls in 1992 in an effort to understand public support for medical, health and scientific research. The results of Research!America’s polls have proven invaluable to our alliance of member organizations and, in turn, to the fulfillment of our mission to make research to improve health a higher national priority. In response to growing usage and demand, Research!America has expanded its portfolio, which includes state, national and issue-specific polling. Poll data is available by request or at www.researchamerica.org.

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.

 

U.S. Investment in Biomedical and Health Research on Downward Trend

Pending Budget Cuts will Further Jeopardize Global Leadership in Research and Innovation 

WASHINGTON, DC—October 25, 2012—Biomedical and health research and development (R&D) spending from all sources declined by more than $4 billion or 3% between FY10 and FY11 according to Research!America’s 2011 U.S. Investment in Health Research report. This represents the first drop in overall spending since Research!America began compiling the data in 2002.

The decline follows an uptick in research funding attributed to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which allocated $10.4 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over two fiscal years (2009-2010). The overall downward trend in R&D spending is coming at a time when other nations are ramping up their own investments in research, and meanwhile, pending across-the-board budget cuts (sequestration) could reduce federal biomedical and health research funding by 8%-10% or more.

“Insufficient funding, coupled with deep budget cuts under sequestration, could be devastating for research,” said Research!America’s chair, former Congressman John E. Porter. “Our global competitiveness hinges on a robust investment that will support bright scientific minds, create high-quality jobs and provide a catalyst for private sector innovation.”

Research!America’s 2011 U.S. Investment in Health Research report shows varying levels of health research funding in the private and public sector. For example, federal funding for research totaled $39.5 billion in FY11, a 14% decrease from the previous year’s total of $45.9 billion. Agency funds were distributed across all 50 states to hospitals, universities, independent research institutes and small businesses. Under sequestration, the NIH would lose $2.53 billion in funding in FY13.

“As R&D spending abroad outpaces federal investments here at home, U.S. companies will set up shop in countries with stronger policies to support research,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “We cannot afford to become complacent as cures for Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart disease and other serious health threats remain a priority for every American.”

Overall, private industry has continually increased investments in R&D — a total of $77.6 billion in 2011, a 1.4% increase from 2010, despite inflationary pressure and the economic recession. The pharmaceutical industry increased its investment to $38.5 billion, a 3% increase from the previous year. In contrast, biotechnology investment declined by nearly $800 million, or 3%. The medical device and technology sector slightly increased investment in research, totaling $9.8 billion. Currently, more than 80% of R&D among PhRMA member companies is conducted in the United States, but R&D spending abroad has more than doubled over the past decade.

Aside from federal and industry investment, other institutions spent $19.1 billion on health research, an increase of about 5% from the previous year. Universities increased spending of institutional funds for research to $11.9 billion in 2010, a 6% increase. Philanthropic spending decreased slightly, while voluntary health groups increased investment in research by 15%, or $131 million, from the prior year.

According to funding projections in the report, the research investment landscape could worsen in 2013 and over the next decade. The scenario is different in other countries; as just one example, China has identified biotechnology as one of the seven “strategic and emerging (SEI) pillar” industries and has pledged to invest $308.5 billion in biotechnology over the next 5 years. Overall, the report provides analysis that outlines health research as one of the underpinnings of the U.S. economy and a key to improving the health of Americans.

Research!America has issued estimates of the US investment in health research since 2002. All reports in the series are available online at www.researchamerica.org/research_investment.

###