Tens of patient groups, scientific societies and academic coalitions much dedicate their time to lobby the US Congress for more funding for biomedical research and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This week, another group, ACT for NIH: Advancing Cures Today, joined their ranks
The organization is distinguished for some reasons. It was launched with a new face largesse, New York and Houston, Texas, real estate investor Jed Manocherian, whose time on the Board of Visitors of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston stoked concern about the last ten years the NIH flat funding. His all-star Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and MD Anderson President Ronald DePinho. And is led by biomedical lobbying veteran Patrick White, who spent more than two decades working on Capitol Hill, in government, and for various research interest groups. Until 3 months ago, White was the top contributor to legislative director Francis Collins NIH.
White has discussed plans with his organization Science Insider. (The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity)
Q:.? Why now
A: The biomedical research enterprise of the United States is in crisis. NIH has lost 25% of its purchasing power since 03 because of flat budgets and cuts. We are losing a generation of young scientists. People close their laboratories. They lay and delay the purchase of equipment. This undermines our creation and economic growth and employment. And we do this for ourselves at a time when other countries are making serious efforts in terms of their investments rise in biomedical research
Q :. Many other groups are the same arguments. Why not just throw them?
A: Many other groups do a great job, but they also have a broader agenda. We try to bring a laserlike attention to the issue of funding of the NIH. What we want to do is to work directly with key lawmakers [in Congress] are interested in trying to meet this challenge. And what we do is complementary to what the rest of the community is doing.
I have not spoken to a single member of Congress who opposed the funding of biomedical research more. There has been a change in tone in the last two years where more and more members of Congress are willing to have an open discussion about our divestment NIH.
And so in what is overall a rather gloomy, I think some members now realize that we must do something. This is the opportunity I'm enter
Q :. Talk a little tactic.
A: The idea is to identify and work with members on both sides of the aisle over the last 3 to 5 years have done or says important things about the state of the NIH funding and mainly to open a dialogue with them and see if there is not some possibility of a consensus to try to remedy the funding crisis.
we have a plan? Do we have a legislative proposal for how we will solve this problem? We dont do. But there was incredible conversations NIH appropriations hearings over the last two years, where members began to speak with other sources of income. There have even been discussions of perhaps a kind of mandatory funding. We do not endorse or push anything. We just want to see something good and something meaningful happen to reverse this trend
Q :. Does your group has an expected life?
A: We do not intend to be in business for long. We kind of look at this as a 18-month process maybe 2 years. My responsibility is to succeed or fail, and do it quickly.
0 Komentar