Written Testimony

James Lantry

Executive Director

FirstInScience.Org

House of Representatives

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee

Committee on Appropriations

Public Hearing

March 13, 2013

10:00 AM

Rayburn Office Building

Room 2358-C

The witnesses at today’s hearing will all tell you about the importance of federal funding for basic biomedical research to cure a litany of diseases which impact Americans everyday and they’re absolutely correct.  Without that basic research, treatments for these diseases will remain unattainable and millions of Americans will continue to suffer.  It is through this basic research, which cannot be profitably funded by the private sector, that our biomedical knowledge is advanced.  And with that increased knowledge, American companies can craft profitable solutions to the biomedical problems that continue to plague us.

Our life expectancy and the quality of our lives have increased dramatically as a result of federally funded biomedical research.  In just a few short years, our biomedical knowledge has expanded exponentially which has led to the creation of new drugs and new therapeutic treatments that have saved the lives of countless Americans and people throughout the world.  Diseases such as polio and tuberculosis which once ravaged this nation are all but eliminated.  And the survival rate for some cancers has increased dramatically.  Some childhood diseases that once proved fatal are now a rarity.

We all know that health care costs have risen dramatically over the past two decades.  On average, Americans spend $8,000 a year on health care.  But how much more would we need to spend without the benefits derived from America’s investment in basic biomedical research?  The costs saved every time an HIV/AIDS patient is routinely treated outside of the hospital or a doctor can diagnose a patient with a simple scan instead of days of expensive inpatient hospital tests dramatically reduce the cost of health care.  These now commonplace advances and so many more are a direct result of America’s investment in basic research.

America’s investment in basic biomedical research has paid off handsomely in terms of lives saved and health care costs reduced, but there is still much to be learned, many more diseases to conquer.  Chronic diseases are an ever-increasing burden on America’s health care system.  To meet that increased burden, we need answers and for that we need to invest in research.

But for all of the incredibly valid arguments that can be made about lives to be saved and improved, there is more to the story.  Every dollar spent on basic research improves the economy.  America’s investment in basic research during the 20^th Century was the driving force that created the greatest economy that world has ever known.  Over 70% of American jobs today owe their existence in some part to America’s past investment in basic scientific research.  Without the wise investment of previous generations, the American economy would not lead the world today.

But that was yesterday.  Today, shrinking resources threaten America’s current and future investment just when we need it the most.  China’s investment in biomedical research has risen a dramatic 500% over the last decade.  America’s investment during that time hasn’t kept pace with inflation.  Today, American spending on Research & Development as a percentage of GDP which once led the world ranks a lowly 10^th.  With the cuts caused by sequestration factored in, America’s ranking may be even lower.  Without continued investment in basic research, America won’t produce the jobs needed to fuel tomorrow’s economy.  Those jobs will be produced on distant shores.

Today, we are watching as some of our nation’s best scientists, American scientists educated in American universities, are forced to leave the U.S. to work in foreign countries, countries like China, India, South Korea, Singapore and Saudi Arabia who value the benefits that basic research produces and are funding it.  We are talking about more than a “brain drain,” we are watching as the fuel for our economic engine is siphoned off and moved off shore.

President Obama said in his State of the Union speech last month that for every dollar spent on mapping the human genome, the economy benefitted to the tune of $140.  I believe he was understating the value of basic research.  NIH funded basic research generates an economic return of $2.5 trillion each year.  We need to expand our investment in basic biomedical research because of its promise of a better quality of life, yes, but equally so we need to expand our investment for the sake of our own economy.

We all recognize that America has a budget problem.  No one can argue that our deficit must be reduced.  But we will never eliminate the deficit solely through an increase in taxes.  Any such attempt would decimate the economy and doom us to failure.  And we will never eliminate the deficit solely through cuts in discretionary spending.  The deficit is too large and, again, such an action would decimate the economy.  The answer lies in economic growth.

At the end of the last century, a bi-partisan approach succeeded in balancing the budget.  But it wasn’t solely through increased taxes or reduced spending.  The largest single factor that allowed for the balanced budget was an increase in federal revenues due solely to the then booming economy.  And that is the solution for us today.

The only way we will be able to eliminate the deficit is by growing the economy.  And to do that, we need to invest in basic research to produce the knowledge that will become the foundation for future American businesses.  If America increases its investment in basic research we can expect to see a surge in American economic activity that will result not only in prosperity for many Americans currently struggling, but also for our government.  This surge holds the promise of reducing the need for government expenditures while at the same time increasing revenues, the key to eliminating future deficit spending.

In short, we need to reverse the cuts made to the NIH budget that resulted from last week’s sequestration and we need to double our nation’s spending on basic research as a percentage of GDP over the next decade.  We can’t afford to allow other nations to pick up our mantle of progress and watch helplessly as our own economy, an economy that leads the world, stagnates.

We need to lead the world but it’s hard to lead when you’re falling behind.

NASA has just announced an incredible basic research breakthrough in understanding solar wind energy.

NASA, March 8, 2013: Using data from an aging NASA spacecraft, researchers have found signs of an energy source in the solar wind that has caught the attention of fusion researchers. NASA will be able to test the theory later this decade when it sends a new probe into the sun for a closer look.

The discovery was made by a group of astronomers trying to solve a decades-old mystery: What heats and accelerates the solar wind?

The solar wind is a hot and fast flow of magnetized gas that streams away from the sun’s upper atmosphere.  It is made of hydrogen and helium ions with a sprinkling of heavier elements.  Researchers liken it to the steam from a pot of water boiling on a stove; the sun is literally boiling itself away.

“But,” says Adam Szabo of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “solar wind does something that steam in your kitchen never does.  As steam rises from a pot, it slows and cools.  As solar wind leaves the sun, it accelerates, tripling in speed as it passes through the corona. Furthermore, something inside the solar wind continues to add heat even as it blows into the cold of space.”

Finding that “something” has been a goal of researchers for decades.  In the 1970s and 80s, observations by two German/US Helios spacecraft set the stage for early theories, which usually included some mixture of plasma instabilities, magnetohydrodynamic waves, and turbulent heating.  Narrowing down the possibilities was a challenge. The answer, it turns out, has been hiding in a dataset from one of NASA’s oldest active spacecraft, a solar probe named Wind.

Read the full article from NASA here

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) — Michael Milken, chairman and co-founder of Knowledge Universe LLC, accompanied by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, talks about the effect of medical research and innovation on global economic growth. Milken speaks with Erik Schatzker from the FasterCures Partnering for Cures conference in New York on Bloomberg Television’s “Money Moves.” Bloomberg’s Deirdre Bolton also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

By KENNETH CHANG
New York Times, Published: November 12, 2012

Martin Chalfie was one of 68 Nobel laureates who endorsed President Obama last month.

And now that Mr. Obama has been re-elected, “I’m elated,” said Dr. Chalfie, a professor of biological sciences at Columbia who shared the Nobel Prizein Chemistry in 2008. “I was particularly happy that in his victory speech, he again emphasized the importance of science and education.”

But the particulars of Mr. Obama’s science goals for his second term are not known. Neither he nor his opponent, Mitt Romney, spoke much about the topic during the campaign, but given Mr. Romney’s promise of cutting taxes, the presumption was that he would have proposed deep cuts in science spending.

“All the indications are that the discretionary budget would have been a prime cut of beef on the chopping block,” said Michael S. Lubell, a physics professor at City College and director of public affairs at the American Physical Society.

Indeed, not much may change in science policy in Mr. Obama’s second term, and for many scientists like Dr. Chalfie, that is a good thing.

The expectation is that Mr. Obama will continue pushing for many of the same priorities as he did during his first term, like robust financing of basic research, especially in energy. “I would expect those priorities to continue,” said Matthew Hourihan, director of the research and development budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mr. Hourihan said Mr. Obama’s support for science and technology research “has been fairly strong,” although he was not able to fulfill campaign promises from 2008 to double research financing at many agencies.

As with other issues in Washington, it is not clear whether Mr. Obama will be able to act on more of his priorities. The balance of power and cast of characters have not changed: Democrats control the Senate, the Republicans still hold the House.

“For the most part, we’re looking at the same power dynamics,” Mr. Hourihan said.

The greatest worry is that the so-called “fiscal cliff” will be reached at the end of the year, with the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush expiring and automatic, across-the-board budget cuts taking effect. Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, NASA and the National Science Foundation would all see their budgets drop by about 8 percent.

That would be catastrophic for researchers, Dr. Lubell said. The science foundation issues three-year research grants, so an 8 percent budget cut could translate to a drop in new grants by one-fourth. Facilities at national laboratories used by scientists would also likely be cut sharply.

On the plus side, without having to worry about re-election, Mr. Obama could perhaps undertake new initiatives.

David Baltimore, a biology professor and former president of the California Institute of Technology — and another Nobel laureate who signed the Obama endorsement — said he hoped that the president in his second term would “have the political space to take onclimate change.”

Dr. Lubell agreed. “If Romney had been elected, there is no question climate change would have been put on the back burner,” he said. “Obama will, I think, begin to address some of these things.”

NASA officials have also been pushing for a small space station that would hover over the far side of the Moon, the first human mission to venture beyond low-Earth orbit since the last of the moon landings four decades ago. It is not known what White House officials think of that idea.

Continue Reading The Article at the New York Times Here

White House Office of Science and Technology Director John Holdren, National Research Council Chairman Ralph Cicerone and Assistant Energy Secretary for Policy and International Affairs David Sandalow sat down with Tyler Suiters to discuss the state of energy and climate science in the U.S.