The Future Of Biomedical Funding Depends On You

Americans today live longer and are healthier in general than any other time in history. Much of this success is due to the government's willingness to strongly support biomedical research. Unfortunately, this support is constantly under attack despite rapid advances in molecular technology that potentially could offer medical treatments or cures. Traditionally, biomedical scientists and physicians have not been effective as political activists. As a group we have been more involved in running our laboratories, minding our own business, and assuming that the rest of the world would appreciate our lofty altruism enough to keep those research dollars rolling in. If this quiet self-absorption worked in the past, it certainly does not today. Scientists and physician- investigators are under unprecedented pressure to scrounge for research dollars and justify their professional existence. Case in point: Only about 10 percent to 20 percent of submitted research applications are currently funded, meaning that instead of spending more working hours in the laboratory, more and more researchers are using those hours to vie for precious grant money. Given the status quo, do our political leaders care about finding better treatments for cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and other diseases that kill many Americans? Of course they do! Are these same politicians tuned in to mapping the genome, the isolation and characterization of new cancer-causing genes, and the importance of understanding how a single mutation of one base coding for an enzyme can alter its function completely? Probably not. Have we scientists as a group successfully conveyed the relationship between the first question and the second? Not at all! As distasteful as it may seem, the time has come for researchers to place their interests on the national political agenda and become seriously involved in educating politicians and the general public about the importance of scientific research in the future of medicine in the United States. Such activities were crucial to securing funds for the 1996 National Institutes of Health budget, which was approved late in the fiscal year. In May 1995 there were proposals before Congress to cut NIH funding by 5 percent as well as freeze funding levels into the next century. This would have led to a tremendous shortfall, and several young investigators would have been forced out of the research enterprise altogether. The biomedical research community responded to these proposed cuts with a tremendous outpouring of letters and phone calls to Congress. Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) has remarked that this enormous response had a dramatic effect on Congress. With vocal public support and help from Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and other key politicians, Congress ultimately passed a bill that resulted in a 5.7 percent increase in NIH funding. This increase occurred as many other programs were being cut. What did we learn from this process? Feedback to Congress is vital, and we should begin setting up mechanisms to educate our neighbors, community members, and local politicians about the importance of biomedical research in meeting future challenges in the health care industry, which will ultimately provide the best and most efficient care for patients. There are several ways to get involved, even though running a successful research lab or clinical research program takes most of our time. If research funding is cut dramatically, there won't be support available to keep a number of labs operating. One easy way to get the word out is to simply remind your neighbors about what you do at work when the topic comes up at parties and gatherings. Tell them about how the system works and of the importance of continued government support for research. If you are involved in clinical practice, keep your patients informed of the latest biomedical research developments and the importance of stable funding for such research to continue. It is also vital to stay abreast of the latest issues that are being considered in Congress so that you can react to them appropriately. In this regard, the Internet has improved our communication network to the point at which this information can be disseminated in an extremely timely manner. Networking is important, especially over the short term, to initiate a rapid response. For long-term support, we must be more active in writing informative articles and op-ed pieces for local newspapers and speaking at community functions, on radio talk shows, and at schools about the importance of biomedical research in our everyday lives. We need to educate the public about the role we play and how important it is for the future of medicine. Many scientists have taken federal support of biomedical research for granted, but this is no longer possible. Once the politicians and public fully understand the importance of our work and are informed of our progress, they will be more willing to continue to provide support for research into the next millennium. Raymond N. DuBois is an associate professor of medicine and cell biology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. E-mail: duboisrn@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu

The Future Of Biomedical Funding Depends On You

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of