|
“Ensuring that the US
continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central
priority for my administration.”
– President-Elect Barack Obama
For more than a year, our national attention was consumed by the historic
election which culminated with the election of Barack Obama. Now that the
ballots are counted and the transition to a new administration and a new
Congress has begun, scientists want to know: what is the outlook for
biomedical research and science policy under our new national leadership?
Many high-profile researchers supported President-Elect Obama’s campaign,
including 61 Nobel Laureates whose public endorsement letter declared that,
“Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal
investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful
governance…” (1) Is this true and what does it really mean for medical
research? And will the new Congress support this vision?
Science is Back in Style in Washington
“I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential
for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military
capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future.”
–President-Elect Barack Obama
In good news, all initial signs are positive, and perhaps speak to a more
hopeful time for research after six long years of flat funding for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Figure 1). During his campaign,
President-Elect Obama pledged to double the basic research budgets at NIH
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) over a 10 year period (11). In
making that pledge, the incoming President used rhetoric that resonated
throughout the biomedical research community, stating, “[O]ur science
agencies are often able to support no more than one in 10 proposals that
they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists.” The
President-Elect’s support for medical research is underpinned by a deeply
personal connection, as he often spoke of the need for more investment in
the context of his mother’s final battle with ovarian cancer (8). Obama is
also cognizant of the impairment of osteoporosis: his late grandmother,
Madelyn Dunham, suffered terribly from the disease, a fact he referred to
frequently on the campaign trail (12). Obama seems to have a deep
appreciation for the importance of fundamental research, stating, “Federally
supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature—
from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical
reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain
ecosystems—has been an essential feature of American life for over 50 years.
While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic
research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled
important developments...”(11).The President-Elect supports expanding the
scientific research programs at NASA and the Department of Energy’s Office
of Science. He has also spoken strongly in favor of improving science
education, from kindergarten to graduate school.
The new Congress, too, seems primed to restore a commitment to biomedical
research. Democratic leadership has struggled to provide increases for
research funding under the strict spending limits set by the Bush
administration. Although NIH enjoys broad bipartisan support, last fiscal
year the agency became a pawn in the political gamesmanship of overriding a
Presidential veto and ultimately remained flat-funded. But the leaders in
Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and the powerful appropriations chairs,
Congressman David Obey (D-WI) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), have all
spoken strongly in favor of increased NIH funding. NIH was one of the few
agencies to receive money in a supplemental funding bill signed into law in
June, (6) and is being considered as part of an economic stimulus bill.
Although Senator Byrd has stepped down as chair, it seems likely his
replacement, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), will continue his commitment
towards medical research. With a President willing to sign funding bills
that invest in domestic priorities, such as science, the chances of seeing a
significant increase in NIH funding is greater than it has been at any point
since the doubling of the budget ended in 2003.
Support for Science Versus Fiscal Reality
“Our country faces its most serious economic crisis since the great
depression.”
–President-Elect Barack Obama
Unfortunately, the landscape is not entirely without obstacles. Campaign
promises and pledges of support must be taken in the context of our current
economic situation and other national priorities. The national debt is
expected to exceed $10 trillion, a figure that is likely to continue to grow
as we spend money on financial rescues, economic stimulus, and the ongoing
war in Iraq (2). Congress and the new administration will be dedicating a
large part of their early agenda to trying to revive our economic health.
Moreover, research funding is competing against other discretionary programs
that have been long-neglected, including education, labor, and social
services. President-Elect Obama has outlined ambitious plans for healthcare
reform, energy independence, mitigation of climate change, and strengthening
of social security programs. Achieving these goals will require money and
dedicated attention from Congress; biomedical research may be pushed further
back in the queue. What’s more, the partisan bickering and lack of consensus
that contributed to the previous Congress’ ability to make significant
legislative progress still remains unresolved, and may only be exacerbated
in the absence of election year concerns and the serious problems facing the
nation. The economic stimulus legislation which is expected early in the New
Year will be Congress and the new President’s first opportunity to express
their support for science, with both NIH and NSF standing to gain additional
funding. Their inclusion or not may be an indication of where research ranks
in the priority list of our nation’s new leadership.
A lingering question that may affect how science fares in the 111th Congress
is the ultimate makeup of committee memberships. The House Energy and
Commerce committee, which has authorization (as opposed to funding)
oversight of NIH, underwent a dramatic leadership change when Representative
Henry Waxman (D-CA) challenged senior chair, Representative John Dingell
(D-MI) and won. While Representative Waxman has been generally supportive of
biomedical research, he has been critical of NIH’s management of conflicts
of interest, and his priorities as committee chairman are more likely to be
the environment and energy, issues about which he is personally passionate,
rather than medical research. Congressman James Walsh (R-NY), the Republican
ranking member on the House Labor-Health, Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies (Labor-HHS) appropriations subcommittee, which allocates
annual funds to NIH, did not run for re-election and it remains to be seen
whether the GOP slot is filled by a champion for the agency. New members of
Senate committees may not be announced until the ongoing race between
incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Democratic challenger, Al Franken,
is resolved in Minnesota.
Science Policy Landscape: Opportunities and Challenges
“I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be
based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the
ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.”
–President-Elect Barack Obama
Of course, funding is not the only issue of interest to researchers, and the
scientific community can look forward to a return to respect for science
during the Obama administration. The day after the election, the Obama-Biden
campaign released a detailed plan for science and technology, which not only
reiterates the funding and policy promises made during the campaign, but
vows to “restor[e] integrity to US science policy.” (10). We can expect one
of the first actions that President-Elect Obama will take will be the
overturning of the Bush policy restricting federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research. Furthermore, the incoming administration supports
increasing independent, scientific advice as part of the policymaking
process, and has pledged to reinstate the Presidential Science Advisor, who
also serves as head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
to a cabinet level position. While Obama’s reported choice for science
advisor, Dr. John Holdren, is a physicist, he has long worked at the
intersection of science and policy, and as head of the Woods Hole Research
Center, he has undoubtedly gained an appreciation for fundamental biological
research from his neighbors at the Marine Biological Laboratories. Former
NIH Director, Dr. Harold Varmus, and Founding Director of the Broad
Institute, Dr. Eric Lander, have been named co-chairs of the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). While PCAST has been
ineffective and uninfluential during the Bush administration, Obama has
pledged to strengthen the group’s role in science policy decision making.
The appointment of Varmus, who has long been an advocate for government
mandated, open access publication policy, may have implications for public
access to research results and non-profit society publishers. Furthermore,
as a Senator and on the campaign trail, President-Elect Obama showed a
strong interest in genomics and personalized medicine, as well as
multidisciplinary research and eliminating minority health disparities, all
of which may factor into his selection of a Director of NIH.
With new policy opportunities come new challenges and there are a number of
issues which biomedical scientists will need to pay attention to under the
Obama administration and more Democratic Congress. Questions related to
conflict-of-interest in medical research continue to haunt the scientific
community and are unlikely to disappear. There will likely be increased
scrutiny on human subjects’ protection and the welfare of animals used in
research. President-Elect Barack Obama was the first Presidential candidate
ever endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (5), a group
whose legislative priorities include limiting the use of animal research.
Animal activists have built up a great deal of momentum, having successfully
supported a number of Democratic candidates in the election, as well as
winning a major ballot initiative in California, and will likely channel
that energy into pushing forward legislative and regulatory initiatives,
some of which may be aimed at biomedical research, including attempts to
eliminate the use of great apes or non-purpose bred dogs in research. In
addition, although President-Elect Obama has declared strong support in peer
review and scientific decision making, as well as transparency in the
earmarking process, based on recent legislative history the vast majority of
bills introduced to direct research at NIH towards specific diseases have
been introduced by Democrats.(7)
Other areas which could contain potential policy pitfalls for the research
community in the upcoming year are biosecurity issues and visas. There was
some hope that the change in administration might alleviate some of the
focus on biosecurity we have seen since the anthrax attacks of 2001. But the
allegations surrounding former government bioweapons scientist, Bruce Ivins’
involvement in those attacks, as well as several high-profile biosafety
failures at BSL facilities and a recent report by the bipartisan Commission
on Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (3) have, if anything,
increased government awareness of biosecurity issues. Moreover, the
presumptive incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator
Tom Daschle, although primarily known for his stance on health care reform,
also has a strong interest in biosecurity and has co-authored a report
titled “Biodefence in the 21st Century,” which recommends increased
investment in biodefense (4). Early in 2009, a number of legislative and
regulatory proposals on biosecurity are anticipated, ranging from increased
oversight of Select Agents to registration of BSL labs to potential
mandatory training of scientists on biosecurity issues. Advocacy on visa
issues of concern to scientists, such as raising the cap on H1-B visas or
facilitating entrance of foreign trainees and postdocs, may become more
difficult as the economy shines a brighter light on unemployment among
American citizens. The new President’s attention is likely to be on
recruiting more of our own citizens into science to foster competitiveness,
rather than on attracting the best scientists from around the world.
Scientists Must Be the Change We Believe In
“We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that
have touched the lives of millions across the planet,” (9). This quote by
President-Elect Obama seems to capture the optimism inherent in science—an
optimism echoed by the research community as we look to the near future for
biomedical research. Because of the extraordinary opportunities and looming
challenges ahead, it is critical that investigators advocate for and convey
the importance of medical research, and that we bring this message to our
members of Congress, to the new President, and to our neighbors in the
public. The research community must not grow complacent in educating
policymakers about the need for investment in research and the pathway from
basic discovery to medical advancement. Scientists finally have national
leadership that is willing to listen: it is up to us to make sure we have
something to say.
Acknowledgements: This article is based on a shorter commentary piece
published online in BoneKEy to which the author contributed.
References
1 “An Open Letter to the American People.” (September 25, 2008)
http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nobelists-for-obama.pdf.
2. Associated Press. (November 25, 2008) “Money is gushing out of
Washington, and lots more spending is on the way to revive the economy.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_ECONOMY_GLANCE?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.
3. Commission on Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2008) “World at
Risk.”
http://www.preventwmd.org/report/.
4. Daschle, T. and O’Toole, T. (2008) Biodefence in the 21st Century.
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=606.
5. Markarian, M. (September 22, 2008) Humane Society letter endorsing Barack
Obama.
https://community.hsus.org/humane/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=27497157.
6. National Institutes of Health. (October 2008). FY 2009 Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations. Office of
Legislative Policy and Analysis.
http://olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/110/pendinglegislation/FY2009Appropriations.asp.
7. National Institutes of Health. (November 25, 2008) Bill tracking.
http://olpa.od.nih.gov/tracking/.
8. Obama, B. (August 27, 2007) Obama praises Armstrong’s efforts to raise
cancer awareness.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/27/obama_praises_armstrongs_effor.php.
9. Obama, B. (October 8, 2007) “Real leadership for a clean energy future.”
Remarks made in Portsmouth, NH.
10. Obama-Biden for America. (November 5, 2008) “Investing in America’s
future: Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s plan for science and innovation.”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf.
11. ScienceDebate2008. (August 30, 2008) Candidate Barack Obama’s response.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40.
12. Zeleny, J. (October 24, 2008) “Obama makes visit to beloved supporter.”
New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25obama.html. |
