February 3rd, 2012
Earlier this week, Battelle and R&D Magazine released their annual analysis of worldwide R&D spending. In parsing the numbers, the two outlets continued to sound the warning that we’ve been hearing for years: American investment in research and development in slipping, while Asian investment — particularly in China — is accelerating.
While this isn’t news by itself, the numbers paint the picture more starkly. According to the publication, the 2012 Global R&D Funding Forecast, the forecast gross expenditures on R&D show the U.S. hovering within a .04% range as a percentage of GDP. In 2010, R&D spending in the U.S. stood at 2.83%; it slipped to 2.81% last year before rebounding to 2.85% this year. Most of the other nations in the top 15 show a similar stagnancy.
Indeed, some nations are seeing increased R&D expenditures; nowhere is this more apparent than China. In the same three-year span (including the 2012 forecast), R&D expenditures in China will have risen by .12% of its GDP. Only Brazil — another emerging player in R&D — has a more dramatic upswing. The upside for the U.S.: In terms of actual spending, China still has a ways to go catch America; the total U.S. outlay (which includes a variety of sources, not just public-financed R&D) is more than double what China is spending.
The report adds that it sees U.S. spending to remain relatively flat in 2012, as the modest increases in R&D spending will be offset by inflation. One graphic within the forecast notes the expected increase or decrease in funding across a matrix that fixes funders to research performers. Not surprisingly, federal government spending is expected to be lower in 2012, though other sources (including industry, which is projected to have a 3.75% bump to nearly $280 billion) can be expected to rise.
In basic research, the report also notes that the U.S. is performing more twice as much basic research as 50 years ago. But because of the decline of basic research among the industrial sector, companies are relying more on academia to perform basic research.
The report was unveiled earlier in the week at a congressional briefing in Washington. Battelle and R&D Magazine hosted the event in conjunction with the House Research and Development Caucus. The event featured remarks by the caucus co-chairs — Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Rep. Rush Holt, PhD (D-NJ) — and presentation of the report by Martin Grueber, research leader at Battelle, and Tim Studt, editor-in-chief of Advantage Business Media, which produces R&D Magazine.
A panel discussion followed; it was moderated by Sudip Parikh, PhD, vice president for agrifood and health policy at Battelle and a Research!America board member. Panelists included Dan Cummings, vice president of commercial and external affairs at INEOS Bio; Robert Doering, PhD, senior fellow at the silicon technology development unit at Texas Instruments; and Catherine “Katie” Hunt, PhD, government technologies R&D director for sustainable technologies and innovative sourcing at the Dow Chemical Company.
Tags: Advantage Business Media, Battelle, Dan Cummings, Dow Chemical Company, INEOS Bio, Judy Biggert, Katie Hunt, Martin Grueber, R&D Magazine, Robert Doering, Rush Holt, Sudip Parikh, Texas Instruments, Tim Studt
Posted in Research Investment/Funding | No Comments »
February 3rd, 2012
Founded in 1868, Wayne State University lies in the heart of midtown Detroit, the cultural hub of the city. WSU had $254.4 million in research expenditures in FY10 according to the National Science Foundation. In FY11, WSU’s total funding reached more than $187.2 million and research funds topped $159.4 million, the highest level in the university’s history. Since 2006, total research funding has increased nearly 30%. WSU is the epicenter of a transformation to create a new economy in Detroit and Michigan, and central to these efforts is their research and research-based education they provide. The creation of new technologies is the core of an innovative campus, and WSU faculty are very engaged in these efforts as they create a better future for Michigan and beyond.
Research at Wayne State covers a broad range of areas, but the school’s strengths center around health sciences, technology and physical sciences. Its School of Medicine leads WSU’s research efforts and is the largest single-campus medical school in the U.S. In addition, WSU’s Colleges of Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences also have extensive research portfolios, with chemistry, biomedical engineering, computer science and physics examples of just a few of the areas exemplifying great strengths.
“Much of our research is aimed at solving significant social problems,” Hilary Ratner, PhD, vice president for Research said. “Wayne State is very much connected to our community in Detroit, across the nation and around the world. Our faculty are developing new knowledge and products, discovering ‘why’ so we can know ‘how,’ and are offering creative solutions to real-world problems.”
In collaboration with WSU’s School of Medicine, the Perinatology Research Branch (PRB) of NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development shares a similar focus on at-risk populations. Located on the medical campus of Wayne State, the PRB’s work is centered on reducing the rate of infant mortality, especially in high-impact ethnic and racial minority groups. Through the PRB, WSU faculty are pioneering contributions to the field that will impact lives around the world, and are making remarkable discoveries that might not otherwise have been possible without this collaboration.
Translating research is a strength of Wayne State. In 2004, with the support of local corporations, WSU opened TechTown, a 12-block research and technology park. Housed at the original creative services building for Chevrolet—the Corvette was designed on the third floor—TechTown now hosts nearly 250 tenants, and there’s a waiting list for space. This urban community of entrepreneurs, investors, mentors and corporate partners is creating an internationally influential village in Detroit to stimulate the creation of new businesses and jobs.
Research!America’s advocacy efforts for health and medical research were key to Wayne State becoming members of the alliance.
“What’s important to us and why we joined is that research needs advocates, and research needs a voice at multiple levels,” Ratner said. “In order to keep America competitive, we need to have a strong research enterprise, and I see that Research!America can play a role in advocating for research and researchers, at the federal level in particular.”
For more information about Wayne State University, visit www.research.wayne.edu.
Tags: Chevrolet, Hilary Ratner, NICHD, NSF, Wayne State University
Posted in Research!America | No Comments »
February 3rd, 2012
Dear Research Advocate,
This week, I attended a meeting convened by Presidential Science Advisor Dr. John Holdren, at which he and leaders from the Office of Public Engagement and the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness spoke about the president’s commitment to science and science education, and to public-private partnership. The assembled group offered suggestions for increasing the national commitment to our issues. It was an opportunity to highlight public support via our polling, as well as to hear what others are doing to assure that the U.S. does not lose our world-class standing in science and innovation. Representatives of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Public Engagement will be joining us for Research!America’s quarterly members-only conference call, which will take place on February 15, two days after the president’s budget is released. Send an email to Ellie Dehoney, VP for Policy & Programs, at edehoney@researchamerica.org to RSVP.
The results are in from Florida’s primary. Before going to the polls, readers of The Tampa Tribune were reminded of the importance of medical research in an article by Dr. Thomas Sellers, director of the Moffitt Research Institute. Dr. Sellers writes, “The medical science community and, indeed, the public at large need to hear and understand the plans of government leaders, especially the presidential candidates, who will decide whether this great nation will capitalize on the incredible discoveries made so far by investing in medical science research.” The media momentum is starting to build on our issue; we can’t let up! Indeed, in the next two weeks, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri will hold their presidential primaries and caucuses. If you live in those states or know residents, I urge you to submit an op-ed or letter to a local paper making the case that the future of research for health should be an election year issue. We simply must raise the profile of this issue, and the presidential and congressional elections provide a platform for doing just that. As always, we are more than willing to help in this effort.
In the same way that voters have a right to know where candidates stand, the public has a right to know how tax dollars for research are making a difference in their lives. Researchers can do that in many ways, one of which is using our new NIH Milestones one-pager, which makes it very clear just how taxpayer-supported research works hand-in-hand with the private sector to get the job done for the patient. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) is a great spokesperson for this synergy – today at the American Association of Cancer Research briefing on Capitol Hill, he spoke of the ecosystem of science as dynamic and interdependent, and at risk right now. He urged bipartisan support for research funding and research-friendly policies, saying, “Friends don’t let friends cut medical research.” My comment on that is that medical research needs many more friends, both in and out of Congress. FASEB has launched a new initiative that could be called “friend-raising” for research, by researchers; as we have all been saying for years, we can’t expect voters and those they elect to advocate for an enterprise they have little or no knowledge or contact with. We must put more faces on research!
In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dr. Arthur Levine, the senior vice chancellor for the Health Sciences and dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), has done just that. Dr. Levine describes the potential damage of impending cuts to medical research, concluding, “Let’s not imperil the next generation of cures, and further compromise the economic health of our communities today, by cutting funding for medical research.” Other leaders around the nation are stepping up – engaging media and attending town hall meetings. Let’s drive toward the tipping point and assure that not only will there be no cuts, there will be increases in the FY13 budget and beyond.
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: AACR, Arthur Levine, Brian Bilbray, Ellie Dehoney, FASEB, John Holdren, Moffitt Research Institute, NIH, OSTP, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tampa Tribune, Thomas Sellers, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Posted in Advocacy Messages, National Institutes of Health | No Comments »
January 30th, 2012
Today in London, some of the biggest players in global health committed a renewed and intensified focus on neglected tropical diseases, a group of diseases affecting the world’s poorest people. One in six people, or 1.4 billion people around the world, have an NTD and one in three people are at risk. Though NTDs don’t always kill, they cause disabilities, making it difficult or impossible for children to attend school and for adults to work and support their families.
The international, cross-sector meeting marked collaboration between governments, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, pharmaceutical companies, and global health NGOs. It is also an historic pledge that brings new promise and hope to those affected and advances science and health for all. Sir Andrew Witty, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline noted that the variety of different commitments across sectors demonstrates these collaborations want to “travel far” to end NTDs. “If you want to travel fast, travel alone. If you want to travel far, travel as a group,” he said, quoting an African proverb.
Making best use of existing tools to combat diseases will only get us part of the way. The 2020 goals are achievable only with new tools—including drugs, vaccines and diagnostics. Nine of the ten targeted NTDs required new investment in research and development.
To take just one example, visceral leishmaniasis is almost always fatal if untreated, and there are approximately 500,000 cases each year, largely in South Asia and the horn of Africa. The cost of treatment plus loss of income due to one case of VL represents at least 50% of the average spent per family member per year. What’s worse, more than half of people who seek treatment must do so more than once to cure the disease. Available therapies are sometimes toxic or ineffective. New, more effective medicines are needed, at a lower cost, and with fewer side effects.
A consortium project led by Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, in partnership with California-based OneWorld Health and TDR, WHO’s Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, aims to establishing and implementing new treatment modalities as successful tools to control and support the elimination of VL in most endemic regions of South Asia. California-based pharmaceutical company Gilead is investing in further research to reduce the cost of treatment.
In addition to narrowing funding gaps, new licensing or collaboration agreements have opened up “libraries” of scientific knowledge and research compounds. As a result, one pharmaceutical company recently shared 300 compounds with a lab in Argentina to conduct research on Chagas, an NTD common in rural parts of Central and South America, and sometimes found in poor parts of the United States.
Something as ambitious as this takes commitment from the public, private and philanthropic sectors, but the public must become increasingly engaged as well. The names of diseases like visceral leishmaniasis don’t exactly roll off the tongue of those of us in developed countries, and fewer people could tell you why the condition is so devastating. To increase public awareness and advocacy of NTDs, the Sabin Vaccine Institute-based Global Network’s new END7 campaign aims to end seven of the most common NTDs by 2020. It’s going to take an increased effort on all our parts to make NTDs a thing of the past.
Tags: Chagas, Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, END7, Gates Foundation, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, global health, neglected tropical diseases, OneWorld Health, Sabin Vaccine Institute, Sir Andrew Witty, visceral leishmaniasis, World Bank, World Health Organization
Posted in Economic Impact, Global Health Research, Research!America, global health | No Comments »
January 26th, 2012
Dear Research Advocate,
The state of science is very much linked to the State of the Union. As we heard from the president Tuesday night, our nation must prioritize investment in research, including medical research. Read our press statement on the State of the Union. Nature also covered the speech, highlighting President Obama’s remarks on medical research and linking to our Your Candidates-Your Health webpage.
The election frenzy continues! The Florida presidential primary is right around the corner. The media pulse in Florida includes research as an issue, with Win Phillips and David Guzick of the University of Florida writing a compelling piece in the Tampa Bay Times about the importance of maintaining our investment in medical research. The authors write, “… the cost of medical research is small compared to its benefits in raising our quality of life and supporting innovation, entrepreneurship and Florida’s technology economy.” The myriad benefits of research are well known to researchers, but we must continue to keep this message top-of-mind for policy makers and the public alike.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal a few days ago and responded to a question posed by Research!America’s science policy fellow, Dr. Erin Cadwalader. In his remarks, Sen. Santorum said that basic research is something the government does well. Visit the C-SPAN website for a complete response; see the 8:55 mark in the clip.
On Tuesday, Nature published an article on the Republican candidates’ views on science, “Candidates play to the right on science.” The article highlights our Your Candidates–Your Health initiative, quoting former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s response and views on science. The article also notes that both Mitt Romney and Gingrich are opposed to embryonic stem cell research and if elected, would likely reverse the executive order that allows the federal government to fund research in this critical area. We’re still missing responses from the other candidates. Please take a moment to reach out to the Romney, Santorum and Paul campaigns to ask them to respond to the questionnaire.
Candidates must be convinced that support of research is a winning political issue for them; it is up to the people who care the most – you! – to help shape the debate. Join us now!
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: C-SPAN, David Guzick, elections, medical research, Mitt Romney, Nature, Newt Gingrich, President Obama, Rick Santorum, SOTU, State of the Union, University of Florida, Win Phillips, Your Candidates-Your Health
Posted in Advocacy Messages, Basic Research/Basic Science, Economic Impact, Innovation/Competitiveness, Mary Woolley, Research Advocacy, Research!America, Your Candidates-Your Health | No Comments »
January 25th, 2012
Research!America’s Board chair, former Congressman John Edward Porter (R-IL), applauds President Obama’s commitment to protect our nation’s investment in basic research. ”America’s leadership is at stake as other nations accelerate and prioritize their investments in discovery and development. We could potentially witness a reversal in fortune as Asia and Europe integrate science and technology into economic growth while U.S. investments in R&D decline. In China alone, R&D growth increased a remarkable 28% in a single year, placing it second behind the U.S. We must acknowledge and reverse trends that could jeopardize our world-class standing. Unfortunately, many elected officials have taken research and innovation for granted. They must realize that second-tier status will yield second-tier results in both scientific and economic output.”
The president’s charge to train more Americans in science and technology to reduce unemployment and strengthen our global competitiveness has the support of many Americans. Research!America polls show nearly 90% of those surveyed believe the federal government should place more emphasis on increasing the number of young Americans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math. ”We must prepare the next generation of innovators for opportunities that have yet to be tapped,” Porter adds.
Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley commends the president’s goal to spur innovation with basic research. However, funding is at risk with the prospect of automatic spending cuts for government agencies in 2013. Woolley urges Congress to spare federal health agencies from significant cuts that could impede scientific progress. ”Cutting funding for research is not a deficit reduction strategy. Research fuels economic growth and improves the quality of life for millions of Americans. President Obama’s support for basic research reflects the views of a majority of Americans who have stated in recent polls that accelerating investment in health research must be a high priority. It’s time for elected officials and candidates to elevate the importance of research in the national conversation and embrace it as a solution to maintaining our competitive edge, revitalizing the economy and transcending barriers in science and innovation.”
For more information visit www.researchamerica.org.
Tags: Barack Obama, Mary Woolley, The Honorable John Edward Porter
Posted in Basic Research/Basic Science, Mary Woolley, Research!America, The Honorable John Edward Porter | No Comments »
January 20th, 2012
Coverage of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA) was considerable this week. In just one example, USA Today had a long story on one family’s struggle with the insidious disease; reporter Janice Lloyd tied the family’s stories to the meetings that occurred in Washington this week as government officials and Alzheimer’s experts and stakeholders discussed the framework for NAPA.
The result of their work is now online, and the primary goal is hard to miss: “Prevent and Effectively Treat Alzheimer’s by 2025.”
The 12-page framework contains five goals, each with a multi-pronged strategy to achieve the goal. The Department of Health and Human Services is also seeking public input; after reviewing the document in the link above, the public is encouraged to email HHS at NAPA@hhs.gov to weigh in.
Hurry – the window for public comment closes February 8.
If you’re interested in learning more about NAPA, HHS has set up a page dedicated to the law and its implementation.
Tags: HHS, Janice Lloyd, National Alzheimer's Project Act, USA Today
Posted in Aging/Longevity, Clinical Research | No Comments »
January 20th, 2012
Just as India celebrates its one-year anniversary of being polio-free, news of “totally drug resistant tuberculosis” (TDR-TB) in Mumbai has emerged. Previous cases of TDR-TB were first reported in 2007 and again in 2009. Although not a term formally recognized by the World Health Organization, TDR-TB is described as a form of TB that has mutated beyond multi-drug resistant (MDR-TB) and extremely drug resistant (XDR-TB) TB and fails to respond to existing first- and second-line treatments. The result of incomplete adherence to tough drug regimens and improper prescribing, the rise of TDR-TB is worrying, as no drugs currently exist to combat this new strain.
Aeras, a Maryland-based TB vaccine product development organization, recently partnered with China’s top vaccine maker China National Biotech Group (CNBG), to pursue the development, manufacturing, and global distribution of an effective and long-lasting TB vaccine. Aeras and CNBG hope to create an affordable vaccine that may protect against drug-resistant strains of TB. This international partnership reflects the global problem of TB; as an infectious disease that infects a third of the global population, killed 1.45 million people worldwide in 2010, and newly infected over 11,100 Americans in 2010, TB is a major global health threat.
TB’s contagiousness lies in its ability to travel through the air, thus resulting in a multiplying effect of person-to-person transmission. The infectious nature of TB was spotlighted in the 2007 case of the Atlanta man infected with XDR-TB who traveled overseas despite warnings from health officials. Estimates at that time figured that he had, over the course of two trans-Atlantic flights, put upwards of 80 people at risk for TB transmission.
The prevalence and infectious nature of TB underscores the need for the development of an effective and cost-friendly vaccine to prevent, and drugs to treat, existing TB infections. Ninety years have passed since the development of the current (and only somewhat effective) BCG vaccine and nearly fifty years since the last drugs to treat TB were developed. Lowering the cost of treatment is another concern, as, for example, second-line MDR-TB treatment can be “literally thousands of times as expensive as that of regular treatment in some regions,” according to the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development.
While challenges remain, encouraging progress continues in the fight against TB. For example, in November of this past year, an international collaboration between California-based Next Dimension Technologies and India’s International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology yielded the creation of a hand-held TB detector. Called the “Electronic Nose,” this device can help diagnose within minutes TB-infection based on altered molecules present in an individual’s breath, a dramatic improvement from traditional tests’ diagnosis span of weeks. Early identification will help infected persons begin treatment earlier and thus also reduce the likelihood of TB transmission to others. Funding for the development of this device comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada.
A similar quick-detection device called the GenXpert MTB/RIF was developed in late 2010 by Switzerland’s Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), California-company Cepheid Inc., and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey to diagnosis TB, MDR-TB, and co-infections of TB-HIV/AIDS. Funding for its test demonstration study was provided by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Prevention-wise, the good news is that more than ten TB vaccine candidates are currently in the pipeline, with some starting participation in human safety trials. Aeras president and chief executive Jim Connolly estimates that it will take a minimum of 7-10 years to create a TB vaccine in China.
Tags: Aeras, BGG, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, California-company Cepheid Inc., China, CNBG, development, GenXpert MTB/RIF, Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, global health, Grand Challenges Canada, HIV/AIDS, India’s International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, infectious disease, Jim Connolly, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, Next Dimension Technologies, TDR-TB, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, vaccine, witzerland’s Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, World Health Organization
Posted in Global Health Research, Research Investment/Funding, Research!America, global health | No Comments »
January 19th, 2012
Dear Research Advocate,
The data released this week from the National Science Board reinforce our choice of theme for our National Forum on March 14 (register here). Anyone who thinks the U.S. is on track to remain the undisputed world leader in research is not familiar with the facts and is probably not doing anything to alter the trajectory, either. That’s a problem, and stakeholders in research have our work cut out for us. It would be a good start to the legislative year if President Obama emphasizes science as a national priority in his State of the Union message next Tuesday. Whatever he says (or doesn’t) in that regard, it will be a platform for speaking out – which we will do, and encourage you to do, as well.
Speaking of the president, he will release his budget in early February, and Congress will then start tearing it apart. Appropriations hearings for FY13 are expected to begin as early as March, with committee markups occurring in May and June. Despite good intentions, these bills will likely not be enacted prior to the end of the fiscal year, with a continuing resolution once again the interim outcome. This is an especially troubling scenario with a lame-duck Congress making the calls after November 6.
This scenario is further complicated by limits put in place by the Budget Control Act, passed last summer. In addition, via the “sequestration” triggered by the failure of the supercommittee last November, Congress is tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in savings or 9% across-the-board cuts to be enacted in early 2013. In essence, the year ahead guarantees fierce debates over spending. That is why your voice and your advocacy are more important than ever; there will be a lot of competition for Congress’ attention. We can’t afford to be anything less than a formidable force!
The latest BNA Medical Research Law & Policy Report features an article on the top research issues in the coming year. In the article, I stress that support for science is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, but that doesn’t mean we won’t witness partisan divisiveness – as we will on every issue in this election year. But we can and will continue to remind candidates and Members of Congress alike that research is an all-American issue that we can’t afford to put at risk.
And speaking of risky – we are putting our entire economy, as well as our health, at great risk by failing to step up research to eradicate Alzheimer’s. This week, USA Today reported on the human toll of Alzheimer’s disease and the promise of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA) – a plan intended to coordinate federal research to prevent and treat the disease. Harry Johns, president of the Alzheimer’s Association and a Research!America board member, points out that the cost of Alzheimer’s expected to explode to $1 trillion by 2050. Increasing investment is more important than ever for lowering the cost of health care and for alleviating the massive disease burden on patients and their families. We all urge the president to talk about this initiative in his State of the Union message!
The South Carolina primary is just two days away. Dr. Jay Moscowitz, president of Health Sciences South Carolina and former NIH deputy director, has authored a cogent letter in The (Columbia, SC) State today on the importance of health research and the upcoming elections. Dr. Moscowitz references Research!America’s voter education initiative, Your Candidates–Your Health, urging all the candidates to respond. He writes, “It’s important for each of us to know the views of our country’s potential leaders with regard to investment in biomedical research. Do any of them have goals that will help harness the power of research to make us a healthier and more productive nation? Are they committed to maintaining America’s global competitiveness?”
To make our issue really come alive, more people, all around the country, must weigh in with the candidates. If you haven’t already, please send a message through our website to the campaigns and ask them to complete the Your Candidates–Your Health questionnaire. Health research should be a national priority. I urge you to help make sure that happens by getting involved today.
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: Barack Obama, BNA Medical Research Law & Policy Report, competitiveness, Harry Johns, Health Sciences South Carolina, Jay Moscowitz, National Alzheimer's Project Act, National Science Board, The State, USA Today, Your Candidates-Your Health
Posted in Advocacy Messages, Innovation/Competitiveness | No Comments »
January 18th, 2012
In her most recent weekly advocacy message, Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley referenced a study from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. The study, by four people with ties to the institute, found that Nobel Prize-winning scientists make their breakthrough discoveries, on average, at age 41. The same study found that in 2008, the average age of researchers earning their first grant from the National Institutes of Health was 42.
That’s a profound discovery by the authors – Baker faculty Vivian Ho, PhD; Baker fellow Kristin R. W. Matthews, PhD; and former Baker interns Kara Calhoun and Nathan Lo – and one that doesn’t speak well to our global competitiveness.
Moreover, one detail gets lost: The average age of first-time NIH grantees was 42 – in 2008.
From FY08 to FY10, the NIH budget grew by about $1.33 billion; funding has been stagnant since then. NIH Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, notably told a Senate subcommittee last spring that his agency was expecting the lowest grant success rate in history.
That’s why funding medical research is so critical. What discovery will we miss, what longshot experiment won’t yield breakthroughs, what science is being overlooked because research has not been accelerated like it could have?
Research is about what we find. But in this day of consternation about America’s competitive future, we don’t want to look back wondering what we missed.
Tags: Baker Institute, Francis Collins, Kara Calhoun, Kristin R. W. Matthews, Nathan Lo, NIH, Nobel Prize, Rice University, Vivian Ho
Posted in National Institutes of Health, Research Investment/Funding | No Comments »
January 12th, 2012
Dear Research Advocate,
The primary race continues, and we continue our drive to put research on the primary agenda. Shortly before the New Hampshire primary, the Concord Monitor published a touching and timely op-ed by former Research!America intern Emily Norton. Sadly, Emily recently lost her mom to cancer. She tells her story and suggests what voters can do to make medical research a higher priority during the elections. Policy makers have the power to make medical research a higher priority – it us up to us to make sure they get the message! As the candidates stump in South Carolina for the upcoming primary, voters want to know where Romney, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman stand on health research issues. Urge them to respond to our voter education questionnaire (former Speaker Gingrich already has) and pen your own op-ed!
Dr. Kerri Mowen, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute, is one researcher who is speaking out. A front-page San Diego Union-Tribune article, “Scientists on edge about future of NIH funding,” provides insight into the funding challenges facing science and researchers like Dr. Mowen. She tells the paper, “My colleagues and I wonder how biomedical science will survive. My students and postdocs wonder if there is going to be a future for them. I figured that we can either sit around being frustrated, or we can try to insure that the U.S.’s long-term investment in science is not wasted.” Dr. Mowen has started an online petition to boost NIH funding. Be sure to sign on if you haven’t already and share with your networks.
We can’t allow young researchers to become an endangered species. A majority of Americans, 73%, say the government should emphasize STEM careers for young Americans. And 77% of Americans say they are concerned that the U.S. is losing its global competitive edge in science, technology and innovation. Information like this, featured in our recent poll data summary and in my guest column in BIOtechNOW, demonstrates that Americans know the importance of science to our nation’s future and to the future of young scientists. Stakeholders in research can use our poll data to demonstrate to policy makers that Americans believe research and STEM education should be a higher priority for our nation.
This is especially important in the context of a recent study from the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, which found that the average age of researchers getting their first grant from NIH was 42 in 2008. The same study also found that Nobel Prize winners, on average, performed their groundbreaking research when they were 41. If we fail to provide robust support for young scientists, we may lose our best and brightest and the transformational discoveries they could make. Not to mention that we will not reap the health and economic benefits of Nobel-caliber science. This is the wrong message for young scientists and the wrong direction for America – we need to work together to make sure our policy makers get it right.
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: Baker Institute, BIOTechNOW, Concord Monitor, Emily Norton, Kerri Mowen, NIH, Nobel Prize, poll data summary, Rice University, San Diego Union-Tribune, STEM
Posted in Advocacy Messages, National Institutes of Health | No Comments »
January 9th, 2012
As required by the America COMPETES Act, the Department of Commerce released a report Friday that examined the state of U.S. competitiveness and innovative capacity.
The conclusion: Federal investment in three areas – research, education and infrastructure – is critical for America to begin to make up ground lost to emerging economies. Failing to do so, the report says, threatens nothing short of the American way of life.
“Some elements of the U.S. economy are losing their competitive edge,” the report states, “which may mean that future generations of Americans will not enjoy a higher standard of living than is enjoyed in the United States today.”
Investment in research, and specifically basic research, will help the U.S. regain competitive ground. The report cites American successes in innovation in the 20th century and traces many world-changing ideas back to federal funding. Among them: A grant in the early 1940s to two University of Pennsylvania researchers to develop the Electronic Numeral Integrator And Computer – ENIAC – was made by the U.S. Army to help calculate the proper firing of artillery. From 1949 to 1959, the report says, federal spending accounted for 59% of all funding to develop the computer. Today, computers of one kind or another touch nearly every aspect of our lives. Moreover, they helped the U.S. become the world’s foremost computer developer, manufacturer and consumer.
And that’s another key to the report: The federal investment that leads to discovery, which then becomes the basis for a private company. The report calls out Madison, WI-based TomoTherapy and Hopkinton, MA-based Xenogen as companies that came about because of discoveries made from National Institutes of Health funding. Together, they employ more than 1,000 people – and they’re only two of the 16. One of the others – which arose from a grant from the National Science Foundation – is based in Mountain View, CA, and doodles in its spare time. In another case, one closer to the heart of medical researchers, the report notes that NIH and NSF funding helped launch Genentech.
As it pertains to medical research, the report recommends several actions to keep the U.S. competitive: increase government funding for basic research; sustain government funding for research generally; enhance and extend the R&D tax credit; support innovative entrepreneurs; shorten the “valley of death,” as it’s known, and reduce the amount of time from discovery to application; accelerate biotech, nanotechnology and advanced manufacturing R&D; and develop ways to measure the value and effectiveness of research investment.
The 160-page report also touches on the importance of education – particularly in the STEM areas of science, technology, education and math – as well as the importance of updating the country’s infrastructure (the report focuses on air traffic control, wireless communications and cloud computing) and revitalizing the manufacturing sector.
Members of Congress reacted to the report.
“We need solutions to America’s economic competitiveness problems and this report is a good first step,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said in a statement. Rockefeller is chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. “Underinvestment in sectors like STEM education, high-tech research and 21st century infrastructure has diminished the nation’s competitive edge. Sustained federal investment in these sectors will not just help grow today’s economy, but it will also lay the groundwork for generations to come.”
Tags: America COMPETES, Department of Commerce, Genentech, Google, Jay Rockefeller, NIH, NSF, TomoTherapy, University of Pennsylvania, Xenogen
Posted in Basic Research/Basic Science, Economic Impact, Innovation/Competitiveness, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Research Investment/Funding | No Comments »
January 9th, 2012
The American Society of Hypertension (ASH) was founded in 1985 to facilitate communication among basic scientists, clinical researchers and others involved in the study of hypertension. Today, the New York City-based organization publishes two journals and provides resources for practitioners.
The organization’s membership is made up of researchers and clinicians; soon to be leading the way is President-Elect William B. White, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Hypertension and Clinical Pharmacology Division, Calhoun Cardiology Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center, who has been with the society since its founding.
ASH aims to take the latest biomedical research and understand how it can help hypertensive patients and their families. It does so with an annual scientific meeting, various regional and satellite symposia, and through the production of two journals: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, which focuses on clinical treatment, and the Journal of the American Society of Hypertension, which focuses on translational research. In addition, the society has expanded its focus to the management of comorbid illnesses seen often in patients with hypertension, such as obesity, elevated cholesterol, diabetes, and heart, kidney and brain disease.
Research!America plays an important role in ASH’s mission.
“Our major mission at this point in time is to disseminate the latest medical knowledge from research to physicians in practice and the patients who they treat,” White said. “So we do need the visibility that [Research!America] has in order for people to be aware of all the things we do.”
To learn more, visit www.ash-us.org.
Tags: American Society of Hypertension, Journal of the American Society of Hypertension, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, University of Connecticut Health Center, William White
Posted in Research!America | No Comments »
January 6th, 2012
“Our primary mission at HHS is to keep Americans healthy and safe.” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened this week’s announcement of the Department’s first ever global health strategy by reminding everyone that global health is America’s health. Putting global health into perspective, Sebelius stated, “diseases can spread faster and more unpredictably than ever before. As recently as 1963, just 26,000 passengers came through the Dulles Airport. In 2010, 6.4 million international passengers passed through Dulles. More than a million people drive across our borders, dock in our ports or land in our airports every day and any one of them can bring a new virus or bug. And it’s not just people – two-thirds of our food supply is imported. We must take a global approach to improving Americans’ health. The US can and should play an active effort in shaping a healthy world. Health is an issue that aligns all countries around the world.”
The strategy lays out three main goals and ten objectives for global health engagement, reflecting its efforts to prioritize and maximize results. As Nils Daulaire, HHS responded to an audience member’s question on implementation of a bold strategy in this economic and political climate, “the tighter things are, the more important it is to have a strategy that helps us deal with where we are now.” This report helps us show how we’re all working together in an integrated way and making the best investments possible. During the briefing, panelists praised the strategy for its integration of various Health and Human Services agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, its coordination with other US departments involved in global health and its priority setting among other U.S. government strategies, such as the Global Health Initiative. Research!America’s U.S. agency fact sheets capture the contributions and unique value of each of these agencies and departments in global health and global health R&D.
The panel also highlighted the importance of global health as a foreign policy issue, contributing to the security and stability of the world. Kerri Ann Jones, U.S. State Department stated, “we need to know what’s going on around the world to know how and what will affect us.” While this is “money well spent” as stressed by Helene Gayle, CARE, fellow panelist Ariel Pablo-Mendez, U.S. Agency for International Development reminded the audience that we need to make sure we’re capturing the successes of the last 20 years. Gayle and Jennifer Kates, Kaiser Family Foundation also cautioned that we need to be sure the political discussion doesn’t trump the health issues and that they reflect the American public support for global health. Kates noted from the Foundation’s work that the American public cares about global health because they know it’s the right thing to do.
Research!America’s most recent state-based global health polls also reflect strong support for global health and global health R&D funding. 72% of Marylanders are concerned about global health, 74% of Georgians believe that global health research is important to Georgia’s economy and 70% of Californians feel Americans would be better off if the U.S. invested in global health research. While we know these investments are the right thing for the world, it is also our responsibility to make the complete case for global health and global health R&D by telling the full story – that these investments are also the smart thing for the US. See some examples of how these investments are paying off for states around the nation.
Through its policy and advocacy efforts, Research!America is playing an active role in the goals and objectives laid out by HHS in their new report. For more information, please go to: http://globalhealth.kff.org/Multimedia/2012/January/05/gh010512video.aspx
Tags: Ariel Pablos-Mendez, CARE, center, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fact sheets, global, global health, global health R&D, Helene Gayle, HHS, Jennifer Kates, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kathleen Sebelius, Kerri-Ann Jones, National Institutes of Health, Nils Daulaire, Research!America
Posted in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Health Research, National Institutes of Health, Research Advocacy, Research!America, global health | No Comments »
January 5th, 2012
Dear Research Advocate,
The results are in from Iowa and the candidates have moved on to New Hampshire. The race for the presidency is as fluid as ever and there is still time for surprises and time for new issues to become part of the election dialogue. We need more hands on deck to assure that research for health is one of those issues! Contact us TODAY to volunteer to write an op-ed so we can work together to make health research front and center for the public and the presidential candidates. As you know, our Your Candidates–Your Health initiative is in full swing and there is still an opportunity for new partners to join us during this critical election year. We’re continuing to receive media coverage on the initiative, most recently from UPI and eMaxHealth.com.
We know from our polling work that few Americans can name a living scientist or a place where medical research is conducted; the ability to “put a human face” on research is critical. That’s why I’m excited to announce a new project, Science Speaks! We’re asking researchers to produce short, YouTube-style videos that will make our issue come alive. We have piloted this great way to tap the power of social media and are ready to take it viral! Contact Caroline Kuo, program manager, to hear more and get involved. Tell your story and have an impact!
And speaking of polling, today we released America Speaks, our annual summary of key public opinion, now in its 12th year. One of the public responses we’ve been tracking for a while is growing concern that the U.S. is in danger of losing its global leadership status in research and development. This is a significant issue, now receiving more attention. Last Sunday, The New York Times Magazine published “Will China Outsmart the U.S.?” Adam Davidson describes how China has been ramping up R&D investment, which could have drastic consequences for the U.S. economy. The author writes, “Our global competitiveness is based on being the origin of the newest, best ideas. How will we fare if those ideas originate somewhere else? The answers range from scary to scarier.” Our companies and our government are increasingly looking toward short-term solutions and failing to make the new investments in basic research that are needed to keep America competitive. If we sit back while China becomes the world’s innovation engine, then we will lose out on the jobs and industries that stem from smart investments in research right here in America. In short, one of the many compelling reasons to fight for federal research funding is that our very future is at stake.
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: Adam Davidson, Caroline Kuo, eMaxHealth.com, Mary, Mary Woolley, New York Times Magazine, poll data summary, UPI, Your Candidates-Your Health
Posted in Advocacy Messages | No Comments »
January 5th, 2012
WASHINGTON – January 5, 2011 – The new edition of America Speaks, a compilation of public opinion polls commissioned by Research!America, demonstrates increasing public support for research and innovation to improve health, create jobs and boost the economy. However, nearly 60% of Americans don’t believe we are making enough progress in medical research, and 54% don’t believe the U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
These polls reveal notable themes in Americans’ views on health research and the country’s global competitiveness. For example, 77% agree that the U.S. is losing its competitive edge in science, technology and innovation.
Despite these findings, many Americans (86%) believe that advances in science have benefited society and have helped make life easier for most people. A vast majority (91%) also believe that research and development are important to their state’s economy.
“Americans support further investment in health research and have indicated that the federal government must do more to sustain and build our economy,” said Research!America Chair and former Illinois Congressman John Porter. “That is why the 2012 elections are critical to the future of research and our position as a leader in science and innovation.”
The majority of Americans also believe that investing in health research is important to job creation, economic recovery and global competitiveness, and they are willing to pay for it. For example, half of those surveyed are willing to pay $1 per week more in taxes if they knew that the money would be allocated for medical research.
“These findings offer an intriguing look at how research impacts so many aspects of our life and why it must be more of a focal point in the national conversation, particularly during an election year,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “Looking at science as a solution to our economic woes and health challenges is a smart strategy for elected officials and candidates. Americans see science as a solution, and our public policy should reflect that.”
Grooming the next generation of scientists is also key to our country’s health and prosperity, Porter added. More than 70% of Americans believe that the federal government should place more emphasis on the number of American students who pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers.
The poll data summary also provides a glimpse into some of the top health policy issues for 2012, such as rising obesity rates in this country.
“We need an integrated strategy involving both the public and private sector to address the obesity epidemic,” said Woolley. According to America Speaks!, 52% of Americans say government should play a role in prevention research to help Americans make behavioral changes that can help them overcome obesity, smoking and other hazardous and costly health threats.
Among the most notable poll highlights:
- 54% of Americans believe the U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world;
- 51% of Americans think that more health funding should go toward research;
- 82% of Americans believe it’s important to conduct medical or health research to understand and eliminate health disparities; and
- 87% of Americans think elected officials should listen to health professionals regarding health threats.
To view America Speaks, Volume 12, visit: http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/AmericaSpeaksV12.pdf
About the Publication: 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.
Online polls are conducted with a sample size of 600-1,200 adults (age 18+) and a maximum theoretical sampling error of +/- 4.1%. Data are demographically representative of adult U.S. residents or of the states in which the polls were conducted. Polling in America Speaks was conducted by Charlton Research Company, JZ Analytics and IBOPE Zogby.
Tags: competitiveness, Mary Woolley, poll data summary, The Honorable John Edward Porter
Posted in Public Opinion, Research!America | No Comments »
January 4th, 2012
With the holiday season now behind us, a new season is already upon us – influenza season! As rates of incidence typically start to ramp up in January with prevalence peaking in February, it is a good time now to begin taking safety measures to reduce your likelihood of catching the flu.
The flu is easily passed on from person to person (even those with otherwise healthy immune systems), affects all age groups, and can be life-threatening. Infecting 5-20% of the U.S. population, the flu is responsible for hospitalizing more than 200,000 people each year, and is a prime example of how easily infectious diseases can be spread and caught. Globally each year, the flu infects 5-15% of the world’s population and kills more than 250,000 people. The past decade’s H1N1 (“swine flu”) and H5N1 (“avian bird flu”) global public health scares are also examples of the truly global nature of infectious disease in today’s world.
Currently, the best protection against catching the flu is yearly vaccination. Even so, getting a flu shot doesn’t guarantee you won’t catch the flu, as the 60 year old vaccine itself is only 59% effective for healthy adults. The likelihood of catching the flu is also complicated by the fact that flu vaccines are only designed to protect against a specific strain that scientists have identified as having the greatest likelihood of prevalence that year.
Still, it’s a good idea to get the flu shot as a precautionary measure. More people have gotten flu shots this year compared to the same time last year, accounting for 36.3% of the overall population, or 111 million people. Flu incidence has also been lower than usual this year, with only 30 states reporting cases so far.
However, given the age and less than ideal efficacy of the current flu vaccine, the development of an updated vaccine is needed to protect against the risk of future pandemics. There has even been talk about creating a “universal” vaccine or one that would provide long-term (or life-long) protection against a wide variety of flu strains. How long it would take to create a universal flu vaccine is of debate among scientists, with projected target dates ranging from as early as 2014 to a decade from now.
As we head into the thick of flu season, let’s give thanks for the researchers and professionals in global health that work to protect our health and head off future crises, whether they be H1N1 or tuberculosis or a disease we have yet to encounter. And remember to get vaccinated!
Tags: global health, H1N1, influenza, vacci, vaccines
Posted in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Research!America, global health | No Comments »
December 29th, 2011
Dear Research Advocate,
As we approach the New Year, a quick summary and word of thanks is in order. Despite the unprecedented fiscal environment and an extraordinarily polarized Congress, research fared relatively well over the past year. NIH, CDC, NSF, and FDA all received budget increases in 2011, while AHRQ was cut slightly. The advocacy community has played a critical role in conveying to the public and policymakers that research should be a higher priority in America. Thank you for all your efforts over the past year. Read our year end press release with a statement from Research!America’s Chair, The Honorable John Porter.
In 2012, we face the fallout of the Supercommittee, which will bring devastating 8% across-the-board cuts beginning in January 2013 unless Congress reverses course. Everything that Congress does in 2012 will be with an eye on the November election. The presidential election is already in full swing with the Iowa Caucuses right around the corner and the Congressional races gearing up.
Medical progress – or the lack thereof – has implications for every American. As the elections approach, we must work together to ensure that research is an issue that every candidate has addressed. Our voter education initiative, Your Candidates–Your Health has attracted the attention of leading presidential candidates and media including The Hill and The New York Times, as well as over 100 print and online media hits for the press release covering the initiative and relevant poll data. But we need advocates like you to help sustain the momentum. Attend a town hall meeting, write an op-ed or letter to the editor, and work with the media to make sure that candidates are talking about research. As I’ve said before and will again — we can’t expect elected officials who never talk about research as a national priority to suddenly decide to do so after they have taken office. We have to convince them now of the winning nature of championing research. Winning for the country, and a way to help them win election!
With the Iowa Caucuses coming up on January 3, the timing was good for our letter to the editor published last week in the Des Moines Register, commenting on Grinell President Raynard Kington’s op-ed and calling for the presidential candidates to talk about medical research. If you reside in the states with an early primary – New Hampshire, Florida, or South Carolina – please get in touch. We will work together to get an op-ed placed in your state.
And don’t think only of those states. Follow the lead of Research!America Board member and Nobel Laureate Dr. Carol Greider who had an excellent op-ed published in the Baltimore Sun. In the article, Dr. Greider explains that “Our nation’s elected leaders are not championing science — or even talking about it, during presidential debates or on the floor of the Congress — even as other nations are stepping up their determination to match and exceed the U.S. in discovery. It takes years to realize the multiple benefits of science; without adequate, sustained funding for research, the careers of many bright, young scientists may come to a screeching halt.” This is the right message to send to the public and policymakers – if we fail to support research now we lose out on a better future for our nation.
A terrific op-ed by Dr. Huda Akil, neuroscientist at the University of Michigan and former President of the Society for Neuroscience, was recently published in The Washington Times. Under the title, “An Incomparable Nation,” Dr. Akil writes, “… there is a more fundamental reason, I believe, to support science in this country and to keep on doing so even during tough times. A reason that the world seems to recognize but we in America seem to be forgetting: Discovery is at the heart of what America is.” Research is part of America’s DNA, but we must work every day to ensure that our elected leaders don’t take this for granted.
Please help us fulfill our mission to make research for health a higher national priority. For patients and their families, for our nation’s economic strength in the 21st century, for researchers and research institutions across the country…it has never been more important. Donate now.
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: advocacy, AHRQ, Baltimore Sun, Carol Greider, CDC, Congress, Des Moines Register, elections, FDA, Huda Akil, Iowa Caucuses, medical research, NIH, NSF, Raynard Kington, research, Research!America, Society, Society for Neuroscience, The Hill, The Honorable John Edward Porter, The New York Times, Your Candidates-Your Health
Posted in Advocacy Messages, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food & Drug Administration, Mary Woolley, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Research Advocacy, Research!America, The Honorable John Edward Porter, Your Candidates-Your Health | No Comments »
December 22nd, 2011
Dear Research Advocate,
After yet another short term continuing resolution, Congress has finally passed an omnibus bill that will fund the government through fiscal year 2012 and has moved on to other very contentious topics. Including previously signed appropriations increases for FDA and NSF it is fair to say that overall, research has fared reasonably well in the current fiscal climate. Many of us, and you, have worked hard to achieve this. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – advocacy matters! The NIH has received an increase of about $299 million, significant given the severity of the current fiscal climate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have received an increase of about $25 million and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was under significant threat, has been level funded. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) received a slight cut by about $3 million.
Enormous challenges lie ahead. The failure of the Supercommittee triggers an 8% across-the-board cut, in January 2013, if allowed to stand. I am among those who believe that Congress will un-do much of the sequestration, although not necessarily to our advantage (much will depend on the strength of concerned interests in making their case). And if no change happens before the election next November 6, the then lame-duck Congress may well exert its influence – but again, not necessarily in a way that the science community would relish. And coming right up in the new year there will be great pressure to find additional cuts in the annual appropriations process, which will begin in February with the release of the President’s budget. In my view, 2012 is the most important year for science on record; stepped-up advocacy is essential!
And that is why it was good to see the Salk Institute and 33 Nobel Prize winners pen a letter to President Obama on NIH funding . The San Diego Union-Tribune covered the letter and quotes Dr. Roger Guillemin, who said “This funding crisis not only threatens the work of established, productive investigators but it endangers the well being of our future workforce and the ability to train the next generation of young investigators upon whom our economic future depends.” With so much at stake, now is not the time cut funding.
Also in the news this week was an op-ed written by former Research!America board member Dr. Bill Brinkley and Paul G. Rogers Global Health Ambassador Dr. Peter Hotez. Their article in the Houston Chronicle explains how U.S. scientists’ publications have fallen to third place in terms of scientific impact, behind Germany and the U.K. This is even more evidence that we are losing our competitiveness at a time when NIH funding is essentially flat and grant success rates are at an all-time low. States and the federal government alike need to maintain our nation’s long-standing commitment to science by continuing to support robust investment in research.
Especially given the national attention to Iowa, with the caucuses taking place there in less than two weeks, we were especially pleased to see an op-ed authored by Dr. Raynard Kington, president of Grinnell College and former NIH associate director appear in the Des Moines Register. Dr. Kington points out that medical research is a critical issue for our nation with implications for our economy, our health, and the cost of healthcare, yet the presidential candidates have said relatively little on the topic. To his point, I am glad to report that in response to a questionnaire from our voter education initiative, Your Candidates – Your Health we have heard from the Gingrich and Obama campaigns. Today’s release on this topic also includes current public opinion poll data. Check it out here: http://www.researchamerica.org/release_22dec11_ycyh
Sincerely,
Mary Woolley
Tags: advocacy, AHRQ, Bill Brinkley, CDC, Congress, Dr. Roger Guillemin, elections, FDA, funding, goverment, Houston Chronicle, Iowa, Mary Woolley, Newt Gingrich, NIH, NSF, Obama, omnibus bill, Paul Rogers, Peter Hotez, Raynard Kington, Salk Institute, supercommittee, Your Candidates-Your Health
Posted in Advocacy Messages, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food & Drug Administration, Mary Woolley, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Paul G. Rogers Society for Global Health Research, Research Advocacy, Research!America, Your Candidates-Your Health, global health | No Comments »
December 20th, 2011
Research!America concluded its Global Health U.S. Agency Fact Sheet Series with the release of its U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) fact sheet. In addition to the USAID fact sheet, the six-part series includes fact sheets on the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Each fact sheet details the agency’s involvement with global health research and development and its corresponding health and economic impact here at home. As the largest funder of global health research, the United States government is working through these agencies to ensure that our nation remains the world leader in biomedical innovation. Each agency’s vital and distinct contribution to better worldwide health is also a contribution to a safer future for our children.
Below are just a few examples of how the federal government is working to improve our health and boost our economy:
- Each research grant awarded by the NIH helps to generate 7 new jobs; each $1 million NIH invests doubles to create $2 million in new state business activity.
- The military (through DoD) has contributed to the development of 25% of all vaccines licensed in the U.S. since 1962.
- The CDC employs more than 11,000 people throughout the nation and invested $37.6 million in global health research in FY2010.
- The FDA is considered the global “gold standard” for food and drug safety regulation.
- USAID immunization programs save more than 3 million lives each year and serve as a significant overseas diplomacy tool.
Although less than a penny of each federal dollar spent on health goes toward global health research and development, the American people and economy have nonetheless reaped rich rewards from this investment.
Tags: biomedical, CDC, development, DoD, economy, FDA, global health, Global Health Research, NIH, USAID
Posted in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food & Drug Administration, Global Health Research, National Institutes of Health, Research!America, global health | No Comments »