Tag Archives: Society for Neuroscience
Research!America To Honor Leaders in Medical and Health Research Advocacy
Robin Roberts, Michael Milken, Dr. Kenneth Olden, David Van Andel, Dr. George Vande Woude and the Society for Neuroscience to Receive 2015 Research!America Advocacy Awards
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—September 29, 2014—Research!America’s 19th annual Advocacy Awards will honor distinguished research advocates who are trailblazers in advancing medical progress to improve the health and economic security of our nation. The event will take place on Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC.
The 2015 Advocacy Award winners are ABC’s “Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts; Michael Milken, founder of the Milken Institute and FasterCures; Dr. Kenneth Olden, Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA; David Van Andel, Chairman and CEO, and Dr. George Vande Woude, Founding Scientific Director, Van Andel Research Institute; and the Society for Neuroscience (SfN).
“These exceptional leaders have advanced scientific discovery and innovation through their determination to improve the health of individuals worldwide,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “Their work has paved the way for others who are committed to ensuring that we save lives and sustain our nation’s global competitiveness with robust support for research.” Continue reading →
On July 23, the Society for Neuroscience held its first interactive webinar titled “Communicating Your Science to the Non-Expert.” During the webinar, speakers discussed how to effectively describe the health and economic impact of your research to a nonscientific audience including policymakers and the media. The presentation covers the basics of crafting an elevator speech and a question and answer session with scientists.
Watch the entire recording online or one chapter at a time:
- Part 1: Introduction, Scott Thompson, PhD, professor and chair for the Department of Physiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine
- Part 2: Why Communicate?, Scott Thompson, PhD
- Part 3: Crafting Your Story, Suzanne Ffolkes, VP of Communications, Research!America
- Part 4: Putting It All Together, Leslie Tolbert, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience, Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of Arizona
- Part 5: Question and Answer Session, Anne Young, MD, chair of SfN’s Government and Public Affairs Committee; Scott Thompson, PhD; Suzanne Ffolkes; Leslie Tolbert, PhD
Excerpt of an op-ed by Society for Neuroscience Early Career Science Policy Fellow Matthew J. Robson, PhD, published in The Tennessean.
The United States has historically been a consistent, international force of innovation and advancement in biomedical research. Such research is not possible without federal funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Although the NIH supports basic biomedical research aimed at a greater understanding of the causes of disease and the improved health of all Americans, relatively few understand the scope of the accomplishments of this agency.
Research that depends upon NIH funding has contributed to improved treatments for many ailments, including asthma; brought advances in imaging technologies, including MRI; nearly eliminated transmission of HIV between mother and child; and more than halved the incidence of mortality from heart disease and stroke, two of the leading causes of death in America. Additionally, NIH funding was crucial in supporting the Human Genome Project, a project that has transformed the way that basic and clinical biomedical research is conducted. These advances in medicine have saved countless lives across the globe. These medical breakthroughs stem from our country’s persistent and sustained investment in basic biomedical research through NIH funding that is allocated by Congress.
Adequate levels of funding for the NIH are crucial for not only future medical advancements, but also the economic health of the United States. Currently, biomedical research results in over $2 of economic activity for every $1 of taxpayer investment. Biomedical research funding is clearly not a “bridge to nowhere,” as it makes up less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget and represents a true investment with real quantifiable returns. NIH-funded research is responsible for nearly half a million high-quality jobs within the United States, jobs that result in economic prosperity in regions where this research activity occurs, including Tennessee. In Tennessee alone, it is estimated that NIH funding is responsible for employing nearly 11,000 people.
Read the full op-ed here.
By Benjamin Caballero MS, PhD Candidate, Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Although science is perceived to have a fundamental role in addressing major problems of modern society — from climate change to global healthcare — the persistent dwindling of its funding by government agencies is a global trend. It seems that the betterment of humankind is in jeopardy if this trend continues. But who is responsible for this? And more importantly, how can it be changed?
During the “Research Matters Communications Workshop for Early Career Scientists” at the George Washington University (GW) on October 9 organized by Research!America, Elsevier, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Society for Neuroscience and GW, this was among many questions sought to be answered. Nearly 100 scientists in different career stages felt that it was us, scientists, responsible for why science is poorly understood by general audiences, hence it is not a priority when decisions to fund it are made by elected officials. Scientists need to understand that the work performed cannot stay in laboratories. We need to cogently communicate our research, its importance and the implications that could have in the future to a broad public. We need to engage ourselves with society, advocacy and public outreach to explain why basic research is essential for the health and economic prosperity of every man, woman and child. This will be the first crucial step for science to become more engaged in the public agenda and away from the ivory tower. Continue reading →
Research!America’s science communications event, “Research Matters Communications Workshop: Promoting Basic Research in a New Age of Communications: Challenges and Opportunities,” was held October 9 at the Marvin Center on the campus of the George Washington University in Washington, DC.
GWU’s vice president for research, Leo Chalupa, PhD (pictured at right), opened the day with remarks that implored the nearly 100 young scientists in attendance to think about their families when they communicate.
“Act like your Aunt Harriet is in the audience,” Chalupa said; his welcoming remarks indeed laid the groundwork for the workshop, as Aunt Harriet would be referenced frequently throughout the morning.
Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley followed with an introduction of the plenary speaker; Woolley also hit on a theme that is especially relevant this week. She recalled the story of 2000 Nobel Prize winner Paul Greengard, PhD and his sister, Chris Chase. In an op-ed in The New York Times a few days after Greengard’s win, Chase lamented that she never fully understood the research her brother had undertaken. Upon winning, however, she read news accounts that explained his work as determining how brain cells communicate; this work could one day impact Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.
“I’m thrilled he won,” Chase wrote, and Woolley recounted. “Now I know what he does.”
That segued into the plenary session from Christie Nicholson, a lecturer at the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University. Nicholson (pictured below) began the session by reminding the audience that effective communication isn’t just necessary when dealing with the public; because science has become so specialized, researchers sometimes can’t understand what their own colleagues are saying.
Nicholson explained that it’s important to tell a story. But before you can begin to craft a story, she said it’s critical to not only understand the goal you’re trying to achieve, but also to understand your audience. And to do that, one must know what the audience knows, what the audience cares about and what motivates them. Continue reading →
A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Does Congress care if Nobel laureates of the future are put at risk?
Dear Research Advocate:
Like most Americans, we are alarmed by the ongoing government shutdown. Since the shutdown began, I have been in Georgia, Massachusetts and Ohio, speaking to business and academic leaders, state and local elected officials, philanthropic leaders, and working scientists. Everyone is outraged! Clearly, biomedical and health research — already compromised via sequestration — is not the only priority placed at risk by the impasse, but it is a critical one. From limiting access to clinical trials to undermining the ability to protect our food supply or investigate disease outbreaks, Americans are put at unnecessary risk when government employees are furloughed. We sent letters at the end of last week to Members of Congress and the president, urging action. We received responses from offices on both sides of the aisle: Many spoke passionately of their support for medical research; some hewed the party line; others lamented the budget impasse.
We are doing everything we can to keep the spotlight on the damage done to medical and health research when the government is shut down. When the public and its policy makers look back on the 2013 shutdown, we want them to remember which government functions most tellingly exemplified the cost — fiscal and societal — our nation incurs when the ability to function is derailed. Continue reading →
Dear Research Advocate:
The Commerce Department’s report of the U.S. trade deficit narrowing to its lowest level since October 2009 is welcome news, but the devil is in the details. Despite the economic progress, our trade deficit with China is nearly as large as our overall trade deficit. Put that together with the fact that China is rigorously investing in R&D while our nation stifles it, and you can see the handwriting on the wall. U.S. export capabilities will be stymied while China’s are bolstered. It’s not a recipe for a strong and stable economy going forward.
China is not the only nation steadily increasing investment in R&D, taking a page from what used to be the U.S. playbook. As I shared with Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic for his article today, “If federal funding continues to decline, our leadership status in the short-term will be tenuous at best.” Research!America’s polling on international competitiveness shows that Americans are acutely aware of our declining leadership status: More than half believe that a country other than the U.S. will be the global leader in science and technology by 2020. A quarter of respondents say that China will be the next world leader.
Sam Stein of The Huffington Post portrays the consequences of short-sighted budgets for science. His story’s dramatic headline — “Sequestration Ushers In A Dark Age For Science In America” — is illustrated with economic points and also stresses what may be lost in terms of scientific discovery. Claire Pomeroy, MD, president of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, reinforces the sentiment in her piece on the importance of research advocacy, also in The Huffington Post yesterday. Please join us in being sure your elected representatives receive the message carried in these articles, and then urge everyone in your networks to do the same! 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 →
Dear Research Advocate:
Myth #1: Congress doesn’t pay attention during the August recess. Not true! Many town hall meetings are planned. Since the debt ceiling and appropriations negotiations are coming up in September, the August recess is actually a very important time for advocacy. Use this month to drive the point home that medical research should not be subjected to budget cuts by attending a town hall meeting, meeting with district staff and participating in our social media campaign, #curesnotcuts. Click here for sample messages, or draw from a recent op-ed penned by The Honorable John Edward Porter, Research!America chair. The op-ed ran in several McClatchy-Tribune newspapers across the country last weekend. In it, he highlights the dangers that indiscriminate budget cuts pose to our medical and health research ecosystem.
Myth #2: It makes no difference when scientists speak out. On the contrary, one of the most effective strategies for promoting and protecting research is public engagement by scientists. It may seem like a waste of time or an unjustifiable obligation, but if scientists don’t speak up about their work, the funding that allows that work may evaporate. In a recent entry on his website, David Eagleman, a PhD researcher who recently received an award from the Society for Neuroscience, makes the case that the benefits (such as inspiring critical thinkers, stemming the flow of bad information, informing public policy and more) clearly outweigh the cost of time to engage in outreach and advocacy. For those ready to engage, some important points and valuable tips on how to communicate clearly and effectively were highlighted in yesterday’s Nature blog. Research!America Board member and AAAS CEO Alan Leshner is among the experts quoted. Continue reading →
Promoting Basic Research in a New Age of Communications: Challenges and Opportunities
Scientists, journalists and policy makers. What do they all have in common? They all are trained (in very different ways) to ask the hard questions while serving the public interest. Often the lines of communications between these three professions are weak or, sometimes, non-existent. A greater understanding between them is needed to demonstrate the value and the return on investment of basic biomedical research.
On October 9, 2013, join Research!America, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Elsevier, The George Washington University and the Society for Neuroscience for a workshop designed to enhance the ability of early-career scientists to effectively communicate their research to various audiences and become stronger advocates.
Plenary session speaker:
- Christie Nicholson, lecturer at the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University.
- Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University
- Debra Lappin, JD, principal, FaegreBD Consulting and Research!America Board member
- Cara Altimus, PhD, executive board member, Johns Hopkins Postdoc Association
- Nick Bath, JD, senior health policy advisor, Senate HELP Committee
- Patrick Carroll, legislative director, Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS)
- Susan Heavey, health correspondent, Reuters
- Patricia Knight, founder, Knight Capitol Consultants, LLC; former chief of staff, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
- Jonathan Moreno, PhD, editor-in-chief, Science Progress blog; senior fellow, Center for American Progress
- Nancy Shute, health and medicine reporter, NPR
- Dan Smith, JD, principal, The Sheridan Group; founder and former president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
The program includes a plenary session by the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University; two panel discussions with leaders in science, health communications, journalism, public health and public policy; and a session with top Elsevier editors on techniques for getting published in scientific journals.
Register for half off the admission price now through Friday, September 27: $37.50 for participants affiliated with Research!America members and $75 for participants not affiliated with Research!America members. (If you’ve already registered, we will offer a partial refund.)
Registration deadline has been extended to Friday, September 27.
For more information, visit www.researchamerica.org/communicationsworkshop
Dear Research Advocate:
Yesterday, President Obama tweeted about the effects of sequestration on medical research. From @barackobama, “The #sequester is slowing the pace of medical research, delaying the discovery of cures and treatments. Read more.” It is terrific that the president is helping drive increased attention to medical research. Our thanks to him and also to all who have joined our Memorial Day recess week of social media advocacy. The American Heart Association posted this great image to its Facebook page; we also thank Society for Neuroscience, BIO, The Endocrine Society, Melanoma Research Alliance, University of Maryland School of Medicine, CURE Epilepsy and UPenn Science Policy — among many others — who have participated. Now it’s your turn; let’s kick this campaign into high gear as we wrap up the week!
We know from our regularly commissioned polls that Americans value the work of our taxpayer-supported health agencies. In a recent Gallup poll, the CDC received the best reviews among 10 federal agencies surveyed. Take advantage of this news hook to translate public support into policy-maker action. CDC funding has been subjected to budget cut after budget cut, compromising the agency’s ability to safeguard the health of Americans against pandemics, bioterrorism, drug-resistant strains of infectious disease, and other predictable and unpredictable public health threats. Everyday Americans appear to value CDC more than our policy makers do. Tell your elected representatives: Let’s get past this disconnect; stand up for the CDC.
Research!America has been highlighting the importance of tackling global killers like HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB and neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) during USAID’s Global Health Month. Elected officials and the policy media are often surprised to learn that global health research and development is an integral part of the public and private sector-funded research enterprise in this country. The National Law Review’s coverage (article) of global health has highlighted Research!America’s Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Invest in Global Health Research & Development. Check it out, and if it whets your appetite for more, take a look at our video about NTDs. Typically not thought of as a problem in the U.S., NTDs are now a significant threat here. We simply must put research to work to stay ahead of the curve — to help our international friends and to maintain health and prosperity at home.
Dear Research Advocate,
With a stellar team of advocates from across the research community, we have been blitzing Capitol Hill this week with our message that we need cures, not cuts. Research!America and our partners have participated in more than 60 meetings with Members of Congress, including key leadership and their staff. My thanks to the 140+ groups that signed on to our community letter to congressional leadership. Many partners have activated their grassroots to join the call Congress day, and there is still time to join the In-District Drop-In day (today) and a social media push on Friday. We also encourage you to keep up the drumbeat with emails and phone calls to Hill offices. Beltway media have taken notice of our ads and the coordinated activity, with articles appearing in The Hill and National Journal.
Based on our meetings this week, the message is definitely getting through that across-the-board cuts or more stringent caps on discretionary spending would hurt our nation far more than help it. But it was also clear that continued, outspoken advocacy is crucial. No option is off the table, and that means we must keep making the case. Staffers told us that providing concrete examples to illustrate what’s at stake is crucial, and no community is better equipped to drive the point home than ours. We saw that yesterday, when, for example, leaders of the Society for Neuroscience gave concrete examples of research at risk, and when advocates from the Parkinson’s Action Network who are living with this incredibly challenging illness described what stalled progress means for them. I am certain – 100% certain – that their advocacy influenced influential people.
The need for many more of us to engage was the message in the lead editorial in Science I co-authored with Research!America Board member and CEO of AAAS, Dr. Alan Leshner. In the editorial, we urge scientists not to stand back, but to speak up for research and make it clear to Congress that “No Science = No Growth,” quoting the words of former NSF Director Neal Lane. Research!America Chair The Hon. John Porter penned a letter to the editor expanding on Lane’s recent op-ed in The New York Times, reminding readers that research dollars are distributed based on peer review to every state and nearly every congressional district in the country. He calls on the lame-duck Congress to overcome partisan divides and step up now to prioritize research.
This afternoon, we are holding our post-election forum and award ceremony for the 2012 Garfield Economic Impact Award at AAAS. We’ll hear from Research!America Chair John Porter, Congressman Mfume, Dr. Mark McClellan and Matthew Cooper of the National Journal Daily. We will be reviewing what we learned about areas of common ground in the Congress from responses to our voter education initiative, Your Candidates-Your Health, and discussing advocacy strategies going forward. View full event details here and join us if you are in DC.
I was saddened to learn of the death of former Congressman Joe Early (D-MA). Rep. Early served for nearly 20 years, championing funding for NIH on the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations subcommittee, and at every other conceivable opportunity. He was an ardent supporter of Research!America in its start-up phase. We extend our sympathies to his family on their, and the nation’s, great loss.
Monday next week is Public Health Thank You Day, our annual salute to the unsung heroes of public health who keep us safe in so many ways. Please take a minute on Monday of Thanksgiving Week to do a shout-out to people you know who are making a big difference for health. Check out this link for details. And do enjoy Thanksgiving. My letters will resume on Thursday, November 29.