Header 6

Federally funded medical research leads to new treatments and therapies for those suffering from illness, helps keep the U.S. globally competitive and aids the economy. In recent months, thought leaders in medical research have taken to the media to demonstrate the medical, economic and competitive advantages of government investment in research.

"With the midterm elections approaching, now is the right time to ask congressional candidates whether they would set a high priority on research conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Creighton University School of Medicine and research institutions around the country." - "Medical research key issue for elections ," letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (Omaha World Herald, October 8, 2014.)  

"Cancer in all its forms, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, and painful, chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease will only be overcome if we, as a nation, have the will and commitment to once again make funding the type of essential research that led to the eradication of polio in the United States such a high national priority." - "Promising Research Can't Stall for Lack of Funding," joint op-ed by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley and Susan G. Komen President and CEO Judith A. Salerno. (The Huffington Post, September 12, 2014)

"During this election year, now more than ever, is the perfect time to ask candidates running for Congress where they stand in support for medical research and innovation." - "Lawmakers should reveal views on medical research," letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (The Middletown Press, September 8, 2014).

"It's time to recognize how different our lives would be without federally-funded research. Many scientific discoveries supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies that we take for granted have improved our quality of life and protected us from major health threats." - "The More We Invest in Medical Research Now, the More Lives We Save, Improve for Generations," op-ed by Research!America Board member and American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, followed by an op-ed by Research!America Chair The Hon. John E. Porter. (The Huffington Post, September 8, 2014)

"As Dr. Vivian Lee ("Now is the time to invest in NIH," Aug. 26) eloquently explains, medical research simply must be funded at the level of scientific opportunity if we hope to conquer disease and sustain our economy." - "Support research," letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (The Deseret News, August 29, 2014).

"We must seize the opportunity to cultivate more champions for research. Yet there has been little outreach by scientists to the public to help them understand how science contributes to better health, job creation, and global competitiveness." -"Time to speak up for research," op-ed by Research!America Chair The Hon. John E. Porter. (Science, June 13, 2014)

"Why isn't Congress paying closer attention to the health threats before us?  To accelerate innovation, protect health and save lives, policymakers must close the massive gap between the level of funding necessary to advance medical progress and the token funding levels allocated to research over the last several years." -"Are we doing enough to accelerate medical progress?," joint op-ed by Research!America Chair The Hon. John E. Porter and Research!America Board member The Hon. Kweisi Mfume. (The Hill, June 12, 2014)

"In addressing gender bias in biomedical and clinical research, it's also important to close gaps in clinical trial participation among minorities to understand how different segments of the population respond to various treatments." - "Biomedical Research," letter to the editor by Research!America VP of Communications Suzanne Ffolkes. (The New York Times, May 20, 2014)

"As candidates embark on endless rounds of campaign activities to win the hearts and minds of voters, it's critical that they not neglect, by choice or lack of awareness, a key issue that has tremendous implications for the health and prosperity of Americans: medical research and innovation." - Will Medical Innovation Be an Afterthought This Election Season?" op-ed by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (Huffington Post, April 24, 2014)

"The [American Cancer] society, a leader for decades in scientific research and public education efforts focusing on the lifesaving effectiveness of tobacco control measures, has encouraged CVS and Walgreens to give up tobacco sales throughout the course of our relationship with both companies."-"Cancer Society and Tobacco," letter to the editor by Research!America Board member and American Cancer Society CEO John R. Seffrin. (The New York Times, April 16, 2014)

"We are at a pivotal moment with scientists poised to make more significant and rapid advances if given the necessary resources." - "We Have Done It Before, and We Must Do It Again," op-ed by Research!America Board member and Alzheimer's Association President and CEO Harry Johns. (Huffington Post, April 9, 2014)

"From city councils to statehouses, Congress to the Oval Office, our elected leaders set and maintain public health policies that govern the way we live. Their efforts in beating heart disease are evidenced in the strides made fighting tobacco use the last 50 years." - "Now Is the Best Time to Take Care of the Hearts That Matter Most to You," op-ed by Research!America Board member and American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown. (Huffington Post, February 14, 2014)

"U.S. growth has been much slower than many of its peers', and as a share of the economy we invest only slightly more in R&D than we did in the year 2000." - "R&D Funding Is the Best Medicine," op-ed by Research!America Board member and American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan I. Leshner, PhD and Johnson & Johnson Chief Scientific Officer Paul Stoffels, MD. (Politico Magazine, January 13, 2014)

"As China and other countries aggressively invest in research, we continue to lose the quality jobs, brilliant scientific minds and private-sector capital that have made America a global leader."-"China's Moon Landing," letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (The New York Times, December 23, 2013)

"Everyone must start today to put a human face-your face-on science. Start today to convey your commitment to serving the public's interest. To every non-scientist you know-from family members and friends, to people you meet for the first time-say: I work for you."-"Who We Work For," op-ed by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (The Scientist, November 5, 2013)

"If elected officials aren't paying attention, who will lead the charge to assure robust funding for research now and in the future? Too many lives hang in the balance if we take medical progress for granted."-"Don lab coats," letter to the editor by Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley. (Philadelphia Inquirer, October 31, 2013)

"Put simply, this is a time of tremendous opportunity for our nation to set the course for future breakthroughs in care and in public policy." - "Honoring JFK and heeding his call on mental health," op-ed by Research!America Board member The Hon. Patrick Kennedy. (The Boston Globe, October 21, 2013)

"At every congressional recess, the question remains: What has Congress accomplished to advance medical innovation, or for that matter any of our national priorities?"-"A do-nothing Congress isn't healthy," op-ed by The Honorable John Edward Porter, Research!America Chair and former U.S. Representative (1980 - 2001). (CNN, August 16, 2013)

"The health of Americans and future generations is at risk. This seems incredulous given our track record in medical discoveries that improved health care and saved lives over the years. But our nation's research ecosystem is now in a precarious state as a result of federal policies and proposals that continue to undermine medical innovation." - "Cuts in research funding undermine medical innovation," op-ed by The Honorable John Edward Porter, Research!America Chair and former U.S. Representative (1980 - 2001). (Great Falls Tribune, July 29, 2013)

"As Congress prepares its fiscal year 2014 budget, lawmakers must put politics aside and prioritize the fight against a disease that does not discriminate based on political party, race, religion or creed." - "How the Sequester Hurts Cancer Patients," op-ed by Research!America Board Member  and American Cancer Society CEO John R. Seffrin, PhD and Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center CEO Michael Caligiuri, MD. (U.S. News and World Report, June 21, 2013)

"The fact that some medicines help only a small subset of patients is one of the central premises behind personalized medicine. When that subset is too small for the medicine to be commercially viable, we shouldn't turn our backs on that problem; we should fix it."-"Developing Drugs for Rare Diseases," letter to the editor by Research!America VP of policy and programs Ellie Dehoney. (The New York Times, June 19, 2013)

"Hefty federal deficits in Canada and the United States pose a significant threat to fundamental, basic research as some policy-makers seem to value near-term, industry-focused science more highly." - "Cutbacks to basic science threaten future innovation," op-ed by Research!America board member and American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, PhD. (Toronto Star, May 19, 2013)

"Unless the president and Congress achieve a mutually agreeable solution that alleviates the worst of these effects in the coming days and weeks, Americans will be robbed of the very significant economic gains and the better and longer lives that result from the nation's investment in biomedical research."- "Hurting the nation's health: Sequestration cuts in biomedical and behavioral research will rob Americans of economic gains and better lives," op-ed by Arthur S. Levine MD, Dean of University of Pittsburgh. (Pittsburg Post-Gazette, March 18, 2013)

"Policymakers must recognize that our nation will pay the price for shrinking investments in research and development through missed opportunities to strengthen the economy and find cures and new treatments for deadly disease." - "The Sequester Remains a Health Threat," joint op-ed by Research!America Chair and former Rep. John Edward Porter (R-IL) and Research!America Board member and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD). (CQ Roll Call, February 1, 2013)

"Investment in the NIH has made the United States the world leader in medical discovery and innovation. This funding has generated tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs and new technologies that have improved our lives and our health."-"Federal cuts to medical research would be devastating," op-ed by Dr. Larry Shapiro, executive vice chancellor for medical affairs and dean of the Washington University School of Medicine. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 6, 2012)

"Broad cuts will cripple American science unless Congress and the president agree by January to a debt-reduction plan. Sequestration would slash science funding by 8.4 percent over five years."- "Science and Progress,"  LTE by Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (The New York Times, November 19,2012)

"The U.S. elections are over, and sitting policy-makers must turn their attention urgently to the "fiscal cliff," a perfect storm of budget landmines laid by Congress and two administrations that threaten to go into effect in early January."-" Speak Up for Science Funding," lead editorial by Mary Woolley and Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (Science Magazine, November 9, 2012)

"Unfortunately, money for research and development is on the decline, putting our global competitiveness at risk. Congress has come together before for research and can again; it's especially important that the lame-duck session after the election overcome partisan divides and that lawmakers make decisions to keep our country strong by keeping science high on the priority list." -"Money for Research," LTE by Hon. John Edward Porter (The New York Times, November 8, 2012)

"Have elected officials become too numb to the reality that world-class science doesn't happen without a world-class commitment? We must elect candidates who will make science a priority. That should be a no-brainer." - "Are we too numb to care about the Nobel prizes in science?," by Mary Woolley (Sacramento Bee, October 15, 2012)

"All Arkansans have a stake in ensuring sustained investment in biomedical research. The looming cuts in the NIH budget jeopardize the vital momentum in research here in Arkansas and around the nation." - "Research Boosts Health, Economy," by Peter O. Kohler, MD, vice chancellor of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Northwest (Northwest Arkansas Times, August 13, 2012)

"Our challenge is to make sure that everyone in Washington understands the importance of NIH-funded research to us in Northern California. House and Senate representatives and the White House must be thanked for supporting NIH in the past and encouraged to champion a generous increase for NIH in the future, despite political and economic pressures." - "Why research funding needs the North Bay's help," by Dennis F. Mangan, PhD, retired NIH program director, former associate dean for research at the University of Southern California and now a science communication advisor (Press Democrat, August 11, 2012)

"Advancements could improve the quality of life for Romney and others who struggle balancing the demands of work and family life with degenerative diseases. Many people would rightly ask, "What are we waiting for?" If there ever was a priority item deserving federal government support, even in tight times, surely research for health qualifies. What do the candidates have to say on this issue?" -  "Even in tough economy, invest in MS research," LTE by Mary Woolley (USA TODAY, July 8, 2012)

"Every constituent deserves to know where candidates stand on research to improve health and save lives, as this is a defining issue for ours and generations to come. We have all benefited from investments in health research through vaccines, drugs, devices and public health and prevention strategies."- "Medical research is threatened ," by Robert W. Rubin, PhD, President and CEO, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (Albuquerque Journal, June 27, 2012)

"With medical research institutions bracing for deep cuts in government funding, it's more important than ever to know where Montana's congressional candidates stand on this issue."- "Know where your representatives stand on medical research," LTE by Mary Woolley (Billings Gazette, June 24, 2012)

"If we want America to be the world leader in science and innovation, we must look to our elected representatives in Congress to work with their congressional compatriots and the White House to ensure that funding for medical research is treated as a top national priority." -"Don't cut medical-research funding that could lead to tomorrow's cures ," by Dave Poulsen, PhD, research associate professor at the University of Montana and The Montana Neuroscience Institute, Rob Bargatze, PhD, chief science officer at LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals in Bozeman, and Brett Baker,MSc, DC, president and CEO of Microbion in Bozeman. (Great Falls Tribune, June 18, 2012)

"It's no surprise that expatriates are returning home to countries that are aggressively ramping up their investments in research and development as our nation's commitment to the research enterprise continues to fall short. Federal funding for scientific, medical and health research has been on the decline, and the outlook is grim with more spending cuts in the offing." - "Investing in Research," LTE by Mary Woolley (NY Times, May 30, 2012)

"While medical progress in the past 50 years has advanced treatment for respiratory distress syndrome, a condition that affects most preterm babies, extensive research can lead to new therapies that will improve health and quality of life for these fragile infants."

"Studies needed to address premature births," LTE by Billie Lou Short, MD (USA Today, May 07, 2012)

"Medical research is a powerful economic driver. In North Carolina, the National Institutes of Health provided more than $1 billion for research at colleges, universities, medical centers and small businesses in FY2011. These funds supported more than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs." - "Shoring up research," LTE by Suzanne W. Wilkison (The News & Observer, May 02, 2012)

"Every American deserves to know where candidates stand on research to improve health and save lives, as this is a defining issue for ours and generations to come. We have all benefited from investments in health research, through vaccines, drugs, devices, and evidence-based public health and prevention strategies. If we want to continue to enjoy healthier lives, we must ensure that research remains a national priority even in tough fiscal times." — "Are we taking medical research and future healthcare advances for granted?" by Mary J.C. Hendrix, PhD (Chicago Tribune, March 15, 2012)

"Michigan is one of the most prominent states for biomedical research ... Such research depends largely on federal funding from NIH. In 2011, NIH provided $655 million for research at colleges, universities, medical centers, and small businesses in Michigan, corresponding to 13,000 good jobs. Scientists at my own institution, the U-M Health System, garnered $320 million of that total." — "U.S. must recommit to funding medical research," by Gilbert S. Omenn, MD, PhD (The Detroit News, February 22, 2012)

"We have the brainpower assembled to tackle health disparities; now we need the resources to accomplish the goal. Sadly, medical research has been largely overlooked during the presidential campaign. This is surprising, given that biomedical research is critical to lowering the cost of health care, bringing new, lifesaving cures and treatments to patients who cannot afford to wait, tackling disparities in health and creating research and manufacturing jobs." — "Medical research funding cuts could be hazardous to America's health," by The Honorable Louis Sullivan, MD (McClatchy Newspapers, February 22, 2012)

".. Dramatic advances in the prevention and cure of cancer will not happen without funding from the National Institutes of Health. Beyond the important goal of beating cancer, our successes bring prestige to our region, new jobs and new industries." — "A wise investment in the nation's health," by Thomas Sellers, PhD, MPH (Tampa [FL] Tribune, January 25, 2012)

"Every day, we hear about remarkable advances and discoveries, which could lead to new preventive screening methods or treatments for cancer. Yet it's harder than ever for scientists to obtain research grants, which puts the brakes on medical innovation." — "Missing from campaign issues: medical research," by Emily Norton (Concord [NH] Monitor, January 7, 2012)

"Who cares, you might ask, when the deficit is so huge it is beyond our comprehension? ... Can’t we set research aside and return to it when we can afford it? These are precisely the kinds of questions that trigger the scientific community’s well-reasoned responses about the need for better cures, for job creation, for maintaining America’s leadership position. But my answer is much simpler: In trying to solve our everyday problems, can we afford to lose the essence of who we are? Should we not fight to remain that incomparable nation, the one that always has believed in the limitless power of seeking the truth and living by it?" — "Our incomparable nation: Keep American science alive," Huda Akil, MD, PhD (Washington Times, December 27, 2011)

"You win some, you lose some. That appears to be the current state of affairs with federal funding for research. Congress recently passed legislation providing a modest increase in funding to the National Institutes of Health, which funds research at the Johns Hopkins University and other universities, academic medical centers, small businesses, and independent research institutions across the U.S. That's the good news. The bad news is that this increase doesn't make up for the $300 million-plus cut the NIH received in the last budget go-round; much less does it keep pace with the increasing cost of conducting medical research." — "American science losing ground," Carol Greider, PhD (Baltimore Sun, December 22, 2011)

"Today, a biomedical scientist in the United States has less than a one in six chance of getting an NIH grant funded. As a result, many promising scientists are leaving university laboratories for other pursuits. The NIH's flat line budget has had a particularly chilling effect on young scientists as universities and medical centers use precious resources to support existing faculty in lieu of making new recruitments. Are we eating our young?" — "American science can benefit from Texas leadership," by William Brinkley, PhD, and Peter Hotez, MD, PhD (Houston Chronicle, December 16, 2011)

"Cutting funding for research is not a deficit-reduction strategy. ... We must give our scientists and health researchers the resources they need to conquer our most daunting health challenges. We must also give them the recognition they deserve for persevering in difficult economic times. If we expect more Nobel Prizes for American scientists, we need to act like a country that values being world class in science and innovation." — "Where's the recognition for budding Nobel laureates?" by Mary Woolley (Inside Science, December 9, 2011)

"I predict that the future of science funding is rosy—except in the United States. If there were agencies akin to Standard & Poor’s charged with rating life-sciences futures in the U.S., we would be looking at a downgrade. We would owe such a downgrade largely to the complacency of federal policymakers, too many of whom appear willing to watch the U.S. research enterprise wither on the vine." — "Research and debt reduction," by Mary Woolley (The Scientist, October 1, 2011)

"Speaking as someone who has spent most of my life in a lab, I can safely say we, as scientists, have not done a stellar job informing people about what we do or how we do it. This may prove to be a significant omission, as research funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are now on the chopping block despite strong public support for research. " — "Scientific research investment pays off for Montana," by Richard Bridges, PhD (Billings [MT] Gazette, April 25, 2011)