Posts Tagged ‘op ed’

NYT: Learning a Lesson From Baseball

Friday, October 24th, 2008

Today’s New York Times includes an op-ed by Billy Beane, Newt Gingrich and John Kerry about comparative effectiveness research and how to turn America’s health care system around using a lesson from baseball.

Remarkably, a doctor today can get more data on the starting third baseman on his fantasy baseball team than on the effectiveness of life-and-death medical procedures. Studies have shown that most health care is not based on clinical studies of what works best and what does not — be it a test, treatment, drug or technology. Instead, most care is based on informed opinion, personal observation or tradition.

Similarly, a health care system that is driven by robust comparative clinical evidence will save lives and money.

Read the rest of the op-ed here.

AJC: Avoid partisan politics; we must have better health care

Friday, October 24th, 2008

Research!America board member John Seffrin, PhD, CEO of the American Cancer Society, has an op-ed published in yesterday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

We can do better than the current system. To get there, we need to have a real debate about how best to improve health care. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama owe it to the public to avoid partisan arguments that have divided the country and doomed health care reform efforts in the past. Instead, each should be prepared have a real debate after Election Day about how to improve health care.

Baltimore Sun: Disparity of Disease

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Peter Hotez, MD, PhDPeter Hotez, MD, PhD, Paul G. Rogers Society for Global Health Research Ambassador and director of the Sabine Vaccine Institute, has an op-ed published in today’s Baltimore Sun.

Since 2001, the government has spent almost $50 billion for national biodefense at sites such as Fort Detrick and other specialty laboratories and universities, and this amount is likely to increase further with ambitious plans to build high-containment laboratories across the country. To be sure, there is an excellent rationale for improving our defense against biological threats. But the diseases that we are preparing against do not currently exist in our country. There is no inhalational anthrax, smallpox or bird flu, and it is unclear whether we are likely to face such biological threats any time soon.

Hotez’s is the perfect call for increased investment in U.S. global health research, and the message that global health is America’s health too.

Why Won’t the Candidates Debate Science?

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

Despite encouraging direct references to science and technology within speeches delivered at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the two leading U.S. Presidential candidates still have not engaged in any head-on debate about science.

So write Carl E. Wieman and Alan I. Leshner in The Denver Post. Dr. Leshner is a member of Research!America’s board of directors. The op-ed mentions Research!America’s 2008 public opinion poll commissioned with Science Debate 2008:

American voters are well aware of this looming crisis: In a Research!America poll by Harris Interactive, 85 percent of Americans, including Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed that Presidential candidates should participate in a science debate.

Read the rest of Wieman and Leshner’s op-ed at The Denver Post’s Web site.

Also be sure to visit to see where the candidates stand on health, research, science and other issues mentioned in the op-ed.

Capital Times: Why Global Health Research?

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

The Capital Times (Madison, WI) newspaper published an opinion piece by Linda Baumann, PhD, RN, University of Wisconsin. Baumann, an Ambassador in our Paul G. Rogers Society for Global Health Research, highlights the mutual benefits of health research to Americans and to people around the world. Noting the increase in diabetes in Madison and in countries like Vietnam and Uganda, she calls for greater investment in global health research as “the smart thing to do for America and the right thing to do for the world.”

Editorial: Disease control is not partisan

Thursday, January 10th, 2008

Campaign for Public Health chair and Research!America board member Evan Jones contributed a guest column to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer on Dec. 18:

Both parties must recognize that disagreements over total funding levels should not result in cuts to lifesaving federal efforts that keep our communities safe and Americans healthy. Washington must protect our nation’s premier health protection agency.

Disease ignores party affiliation, state borders and policy debates. Wise legislators will care about protecting their constituents from this clever opponent.

Washington Post: Standing in the Way of Stem Cell Research

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Research!America board member and AAAS CEO Alan Leshner and stem cell pioneer James Thomson wrote this op-ed that ran in Monday’s Washington Post:

A new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos changes both everything and nothing at all.

At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion.

The op-ed also ran in the St. Louis Times-Dispatch.

Op-Ed: Seattle Post Intelligencer

Friday, November 30th, 2007

Paul G. Rogers Society for Global Health Research Ambassador Christopher Elias, MD, president of PATH, co-authored an op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The World Health Organization’s Global Plan to Stop TB 2006-2015 calls for $6.7 billion in funding for TB/HIV control in affected countries over the next 10 years. Let’s hope that the money is found to support both the research of new tools and the bolstering of current practices. “If not,” says Dr. Mohammed Makame, PATH’s TB/HIV project director in Tanzania, “defeating TB and TB/HIV will be a dream that will take ages to realize.”

Baltimore Sun: Shift tactics in AIDS battle

Thursday, November 29th, 2007

In advance of World AIDS Day, December 1, Dr. Michael J. Klag, dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, writes this op-ed about PEPFAR in The Baltimore Sun:

With PEPFAR, our country and our president have decided to do something very generous. Now, let’s do it right.

Newsweek: My Turn by Randolph Siegel

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

Randolph Siegel, publisher of PARADE magazine, writes a special web exclusive My Turn column about his daughter Rebecca’s epilepsy and the need for more research to fight this disease:

During our journey with Rebecca, we have been fortunate to meet with some of the most respected neurologists in the nation, as well as senior officials at the National Institutes of Health. Despite their best intentions, it’s painfully clear that more research needs to be done on the root causes of epilepsy and the development of safer, more effective treatments. …

Until more research leads to a significant medical breakthrough, it will be tough for anyone to live well with epilepsy.

Cuts That Cost Lives

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

In response to Gene Sperling’s July 24 op-ed, Ian Kramer of the Alzheimer’s Association National Capital Area writes:

The broader point — left unspoken by Mr. Sperling — is the real consequence: These policies slow the search for treatments, cures and preventive measures for horrible diseases and disorders.

The equation is simple: More money speeds research and less money delays it. More to the point: More money for research saves lives and less money costs lives.

Read the letter published in today’s Washington Post.

How to Get Fewer Scientists

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007

Gene Sperling has a must-read op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post.

The NIH budget doubled from $8.9 billion in 1992 to $20.5 billion in 2001 and then grew to $27 billion by 2003. Adjusting for inflation, however, the NIH has not gotten even a penny increase over the past four years.

Shortchanging the NIH to compensate for the fiscal impact of tax cuts and rising defense and prescription-drug spending is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Budget cuts to medical research will cost lives

Monday, June 25th, 2007

This op-ed by Research!America board member G. Steven Burrill and Newt Gingrich appeared in The San Francisco Chronicle.

The American people agree that biomedical research should be a top priority. In a recent survey conducted by ResearchAmerica, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that scientific research is “very important” to reducing diseases such as cancer. It’s not surprising, then, that 83 percent of those polled indicated they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported increased funding “to find cures and prevent disease”