Tag Archives: STEM education

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Inspiration from Sochi

Dear Research Advocate:

People everywhere are captivated by the world-class athletes competing at the Winter Olympics. The personal commitment, dedication and motivation on display is certainly an essential ingredient for medalling, but it is not sufficient: Each nation fielding a team must commit to supporting sustained excellence. And both the public and private sectors play a role. There are some interesting parallels to science and innovation — we don’t see it in the public eye every day but when it comes to the fore, it’s the kind of success that affirms the human spirit in a compelling way. When lives are saved with a new therapy or new vaccine, we all take heart and we celebrate, perhaps not realizing that it took years of training, teamwork and ‘practice’ to arrive first at the finish line. What it takes to remain internationally competitive in any global arena — very much including science and innovation — is the combination of well-trained and dedicated people at the top of their form, plus a firm national commitment over a many-year period.

In journalistic coverage that we don’t see often enough, a special report in Monday’s Washington Post describes how government-funded basic research has led to new cancer therapies and a potential “cancer vaccine” currently undergoing testing in the private sector. This is a perfect example of the well-honed teamwork that is our public-private sector research enterprise. But without public sector financing, private sector capital and a commitment to STEM education, the pipeline will not only dry up, its infrastructure will crumble. As Congress readies itself to receive and respond to the president’s budget in early March, email your representatives in Washington to let them know that when it comes to medical research and innovation, the U.S. must continue to go for the gold. That means recommitting to global leadership.

With long-standing champions of science retiring, spurring that commitment will undoubtedly be a steeper climb. Congressman Rush Holt, a physicist whose legacy in Congress as a champion for science, research and STEM education is truly superlative, announced his retirement on Tuesday. His is the latest retirement in a string that reminds us how pivotally important one Member of Congress can be in advancing the best interests of our nation, and it underscores the importance of cultivation of new champions.

Tomorrow morning several NIH directors (NINDS, NICHD, NHLBI and NIAMS) will appear on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. The call-in program airs from 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. Eastern. I hope you take advantage of participating in this nationally broadcast program. Ask the directors what they think it will take to assure gold-medal winning research now and in the years ahead! Here are the Washington Journal’s phone numbers for calling in tomorrow:

  • Democrats: 202-585-3880
  • Republicans: 202-585-3881
  • Independents: 202-585-3882
  • Outside U.S.: 202-585-3883

I hope to hear your voice on the air!

Sincerely,

Mary Woolley

Advertisements

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Are you satisfied with the State of the Union?

Dear Research Advocate:

Anticipating the 2014 State of the Union address next Tuesday evening, I have been searching for the right descriptor — the union is “in a state of resignation”? “The state of the union is not as bad as it could be”? “The union is in a state that falls short of its potential”? “The Americans forming this union are in a state of disappointment regarding their elected leaders”? A headline from The Washington Post last week addresses the latter point: “Congratulations on your budget, Congress. America still hates you,” i.e. no uptick for those low ratings for congresspersons of either party! The president’s rating with the public is a bit better (though not high) as he takes the annual opportunity to discuss the nation’s progress relative to enduring objectives such as economic strength, robust national defense capability, a balanced budget and, implicitly, global leadership and influence. As we all know, the state of our nation’s science and technology enterprise intersects all of these objectives, but the odds are against that point being made. The pols don’t believe there are votes in talking about science, and this year is all about rounding up votes. Yet there are a number of reasons voters should question candidates about their position on research and innovation: because of the good jobs and revenue today; because our global competitiveness in export markets extends into the future; and because medical and human progress remains an enduring and defining contribution that our nation makes to its people and to the world.  Continue reading →