National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials faced tough questions from the House of Representatives panel today about their desire to cut a program for states with relatively little NIH funding while giving a sharp rise to a new center to accelerate drug development. The House committee also heard hitting the views of witnesses about the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
The setting is a hearing held by the subcommittee of the House of credits on labor, health and human services, and education to discuss the proposed 2013 Budget NIH-frozen 31 billion as well as $ NCATS that Congress signed in December. Chair of the Committee Denny Rehberg (R-MT) reminded the director Francis Collins NIH Acting Director Thomas Insel NCATS that while he now supports NCATS, he was not satisfied with his hasty creation, which caused an uproar among scientists last year: "It is no secret that I do not necessarily like the way NCATS came about."
Rehberg emphasized that Congress has not given NCATS power to "compete with industry or become a drug development organization." He also expressed concern about the abandonment of basic research, now about 55% of the NIH budget. Collins assured him that he does not expect this to change.
Several panel members also noted that the NIH wants to increase the NCATS budget of $ 64 million ($ 639 million), while reducing $ 51 million Institutional Development Awards (IDEA) to help States become stronger competitors for NIH research grants. Collins explained that Congress gave IDeA an extra $ 50 million this year, an increase that the views of NIH as "a great need for a boost of time." The agency wants to use this money in 2013 other priorities
Rehberg disagreed. "We suggest ... that they are 1 year of funding," said he, and he and several other legislators in IDeA states suggested. cut the money seems to go IDeA NCATS "He cut one place and add another," said Cynthia Lummis Representative (R-WY) Collins objected... " These are not the same dollars that just moved from one box to another This is part of a larger overall plan for where the scientific opportunities are greatest, "he said.
Only a few panelists discussed the overall picture of the budget for NIH; adjusted for inflation, was flat for a decade. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) listened to the late 190s, when Congress decided to double the NIH budget over 5 years. "This should be our goal again," she said. Representative Nita Lowey and (D-NY) said she pushed for $ 32 billion for NIH in 2013. DeLauro also asked what would happen in the worst case scenario, if Congress fails to agree on a plan to reduce the federal deficit and NIH is hit with a mandatory budget reduction of $ 2.5 billion. "It would be devastating," said Collins.
Later in the hearing, several witnesses explained their views on NCATS. Roy Vagelos, a former Merck CEO and President of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, argued that what the industry needs the NIH is not new, but basic research. Although some things NCATS wants to do, such as improved toxicology tests could be "useful", they "are not issues limitation in the development of new drugs, "he said. He would prefer new money for NCATS go to young scientists. 17% success rate, they now face in search of their first research grant is "is a direction for disaster," said Vagelos, who was also his appearance as an advisor to the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
But two other witnesses have welcomed the creation of NCATS. Scott Koenig, CEO of biotech Macrogenetics who spoke of the biotechnology Industry Organization, said NCATS could "fill gaps "in areas that are not priorities for the industry, such as predictive toxicology and find new biomarkers of disease. and Todd Scherer, CEO of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson research said NIH could help industry by focusing on new targets.
another controversial proposal in 2013 the budget of the NIH, a change in the design and 15% for cutting 193 million national study of $ children went up only in the introductory remarks Rehberg. "Transparent Discussion is necessary to ensure that the proposed changes do not undermine the scientific value of the study," he said.
0 Komentar