Tag: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

US election 2020: research and health institutions

Volume 396, Number 10259

24 October 2020

 

WORLD REPORT   How will the NIH, CDC, and FDA change if President Donald Trump wins a second term or if his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, defeats him? Susan Jaffe reports from Washington, DC. 

Whoever wins the presidency needs to “restore the CDC and improve it by letting [scientists] know that they will have an opportunity to do the best science and make the best recommendations…” says James Curran, dean of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta. [Continued here.]…

Trump administration limits fetal tissue research

Volume 393    Number 10189         15 June 2019   
WORLD REPORT    The move could threaten medical research advances, say scientists, as acquisition of new fetal tissue for research is substantially hindered. Susan Jaffe reports.              

“Many discoveries now in clinical practice and wide research use have come from human fetal tissue”, said Irving Weissman, director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. “For these, there was—and still is—no substitute for human fetal tissue.”

…Anti-abortion groups praised the new policy, which would “separate federal research funding from the abortion industry”, said Melanie Israel, a research associate at the conservative Heritage Foundation… Yet how the new Trump research policy would reduce abortions is still unclear. “They are conflating pro-life issues and abortion with research”, said Jennifer Zeitzer, public affairs director at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “But there’s no evidence that women are getting abortions so they can donate fetal tissue for research.”  [Continued here.]  …

Marching for science as budget cuts threaten US research

lancet cover 2Volume 389, Number  10080 

29 April 2017 

WORLD REPORT   Americans push back against President Trump’s proposed budget cuts… Susan Jaffe, The Lancet’s Washington correspondent, reports. 

President Donald Trump is famous for his early morning Tweets and off-the-cuff remarks that can sometimes be puzzling. But what he thinks about biomedical research and basic science is quite clear in his first proposed budget for running the federal government.

March for Science, Washington, D.C. / Susan Jaffe

Trump’s America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again outlines a $1·1 trillion spending plan that would take effect when the new fiscal year begins in October. The president wants to move $54 billion from domestic agencies to fortify the US military. To help pay for the transfer, he is proposing funding cuts for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 31%) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 18%) [and other domestic agencies]….

To squeeze $5·8 billion out of the agency’s $30·3 billion budget, the Trump administration would reorganise NIH’s 27 institutes and centres and “rebalance federal contributions to research funding” according to the budget blueprint. …Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told a congressional committee last month that the NIH could operate on a tighter budget by cutting the roughly 30% of grant money that pays for indirect research costs. These expenses can include rent, utilities, administrative staff, and equipment. “That money goes for something other than the research that’s being done”, Price said.

Price’s suggestion was especially disturbing coming from the person who is responsible for overseeing the NIH, said Harold Varmus, who directed the NIH in the 1990s and headed the National Cancer Institute at NIH for 5 years until 2015. “You can’t do research in the dark”, he said. “You can’t do research—at least my kind of research—without a building and without electricity and water and administrative expenses”. [Continued  here]

 …

US presidential candidates urged to support health research

lancet cover 2Volume 387, Number  10037 
18 June  2016 

WORLD REPORT   Advocates for medical research are eager to hear how the presidential candidates would advance the search for new treatments.  Susan Jaffe, The Lancet’s Washington correspondent, reports.

As the most tumultuous presidential primary season in recent times comes to an end, biomedical researchers, physicians, and advocacy groups want the candidates campaigning for the White House to address some of the substantive matters they worry about: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, advancing Alzheimer’s disease research, speeding up drug development, and a host of research related issues.

… In New Hampshire last year, the campaigns provided a preview of the kind of discussion between candidates and voters that research and patients’ advocacy groups would like. It revealed a stark difference between Clinton and Trump on funding for Alzheimer’s research and support for those caring for the 5·4 million Americans stricken with the disease. [Continued here]

 …

Budget boon for biomedical research

Susan Jaffe | Washington Correspondent for The Lancet | 31st December 2015

budget 123115The US Congress has become famous for political gridlock  but sThe Lancet USA blog logohortly before going home for the holidays, members approved a 2,009-page budget for fiscal year 2016 with generous increases for some key health and science agencies, most notably the ailing National Institutes of Health. [Continued here.]…

NIH budget shrinks despite Ebola emergency funds

image Volume 385, Issue 9966, 31 January 2015

WORLD REPORT Even with a boost in funding for Ebola research, the US National Institutes of Health’s fiscal year 2015 budget is the lowest in years. Susan Jaffe, The Lancet’s Washington correspondent, reports.

During last year’s contentious congressional hearings investigating the US response to Ebola, the Obama Administration’s top health officials fended off criticism hurled by both Democrats and Republicans. But in another show of bipartisanship only a few weeks later, Congress granted nearly all of President Barack Obama’s request for emergency funding to combat the disease here and abroad.

Thumbnail image of Figure. Opens large image

NIH Director Francis Collins

In his State of the Union address earlier this month, the President expressed his appreciation: “In west Africa, our troops, our scientists, our doctors, our nurses, and health-care workers are rolling back Ebola—saving countless lives, and stopping the spread of disease”, he said, drawing applause from both sides of the aisle. “I couldn’t be prouder of them, and I thank this Congress for your bipartisan support of their efforts.”

Congress narrowly approved the US$5·4 billion emergency Ebola funding contained in the $1·1 trillion spending bill that kept the US Government running. But so far, it has done little to loosen the budget constraints on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—even as a global health crisis such as Ebola reminded many lawmakers of its value. [MORE full text or PDF ] …