The End of the Road

When New Voices for Research began back in 2008, the idea was to create an online community for early career researchers and science enthusiasts who were interested in becoming advocates for scientific research. We wanted to empower people to communicate effectively about science, to engage the public and policymakers in their passion. Thanks to all of you, it’s been a great run. I want to thank everyone who has participated in New Voices over the years. This includes the many bloggers who have made this a rich and rewarding resource. I also want to express gratitude to all of the scientists, policy experts and advocates we profiled on these pages. Finally, I want to thank our readers! Your comments and insights made this experience exciting and showed us that people who care about science are interested in becoming better advocates.

Research!America has decided that while New Voices has developed into a wonderful community, it’s time to consolidate our advocacy efforts. You’ll still be able to find our archived blog posts right here, but I would like to direct all of you to the Research!America blog and Facebook page where you can stay up to date on all of our latest advocacy and outreach programs. You should also sign up for our advocacy network where we keep people informed about the latest news in science and research policy and provide them with tools they need to get involved.

If you have any questions, please contact Max Bronstein, Manager of Science Policy at Research!America (mbronstein@researchamerica.org)

The Pen is as Mighty as the Pipette

Although it seems like only yesterday that I was starting my internship here at Research!America, it’s actually been almost three months! I guess time flies when you are having fun and learning a lot. I was looking through the archives to see what past interns said in their farewell posts and I realized that I’m in a unique situation. This week, the New Voices blog is signing off for the last time. So as I reflect on my experiences, I’m also closing a chapter for this great community.

I’ve been working in research labs for a long time now and I figured that coming to Research!America as a science policy intern would be a pretty big adjustment. There are the obvious differences, working at a desk instead of a bench, being told you have to leave at a certain time and wearing clothes that don’t double as pajamas. But what really struck me were the similarities. It turns out advocacy is a lot like lab work. Allow me to explain.

First, you ask a question. How can we protect the research enterprise in the U.S.? You read the available literature, learn about the budget and legislative processes and gain an understanding of how research support has been secured in the past. You look at what has worked and what has failed and you form a hypothesis. You guess at what you think will be successful based on what you know.

So you’ve made a guess at the answer to your question- how do you test it? Any scientist can tell you that you design an experiment, in this case a new approach to advocacy, a way to protect the research enterprise. Maybe you think the answer is a fact sheet or an op-ed. Maybe it’s training scientists to be better advocates for research or meeting with members of congress to convince them to maintain robust, continuous support of scientific endeavors.

Whatever your proposed solution, just like in lab work, implementation is the hardest part. That’s where having the opportunity to work at Research!America has been so great. People here really care about research and they’ve spent many years proposing new advocacy approaches and implementing them. It’s a grind, with lots of ups and downs-does this sound familiar to any of you?

This brings me to the most important similarity between scientific research and advocacy. Both require a lot of dedicated people working towards a goal. Big breakthroughs don’t happen all of a sudden, they happen through incremental advances made by many individuals and organizations. This is why each of you in the New Voices community is so important to this process. Even though our blog is ending, I hope that you will continue to work with Research!America to make sure that research remains a top national priority.

HIV/AIDS Part 3: Philanthropy

Photo Credit: famousphilanthropists.com

To mark the 30th anniversary of the first AIDS diagnoses, we’ve been discussing the different groups that came together to improve our understanding of HIV/AIDS and develop new treatments for combating the disease. I’ve written about scientists and advocates in my previous posts for this series, but we’re not done yet! Research needs money and philanthropists were the first to step up to do their part in the fight against AIDS.

Today, the federal government spends over $15 billion every year on HIV/AIDS programs and research. However when AIDS first emerged, the government was not quick to respond. Early donors did not even include foundations, but rather individuals who were personally invested in the epidemic. This probably had a lot to do with the stigma associated with a disease that primarily affected the gay community and intravenous drug users.

Those first donors were really important, because together with advocates, they were able to put a face on the disease. Foundations took notice and realized that HIV/AIDS was a major public health challenge that the federal government was not addressing. In 1986 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced that a significant portion of its annual budget would go towards HIV/AIDS programs and research. They were quickly followed by the Ford Foundation which helped to create the National AIDS Fund (NAF, now AIDS United). New foundations were also created specifically for HIV/AIDS research, like the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR).

Apart from funding research on HIV/AIDS, philanthropists were able to help shift public perception of the disease. They could use their name recognition to funnel funds into community-based programs that would otherwise have been invisible. The resulting public support led to political pressure, which led (finally!) to government investment.

You might think that once big federal dollars are part of the equation, we wouldn’t need HIV/AIDS philanthropy anymore. Actually foundations still play an important role in dealing with this disease, especially in the global health arena. Along with the early champions, newer organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are spending significant resources on fighting the global AIDS epidemic.

How To: Connect with Science and Research Advocates in Your Neighborhood

There are plenty of resources out there to help you get connected with other people who care about health and research, if you’re willing to do a little looking. I suggest you start with the following:

1. Research!America partners: See especially the list of Academic Institutions/ Hospitals/Independent Research Institutes, and the list of State and Local Organizations.
2. New Voices members: New Voices is a community. We hope that you can take advantage of the member profiles to get connected with those who share your interests.
3. Science and health journalists/newscasters: Media personnel who work in science and health can be great people to reach out to. They’re looking for good stories, and they’re often frustrated that others aren’t enthusiastic enough about science and research.
4. Researchers in your community: often, the best advocates are other researchers.
5. Science Cafés and other science-related events: To check out a science café near you, visit this site. These types of events are a good way to meet lay-people who have a genuine interest in science. It’s also a great way to meet researchers who enjoy public interactions and advocacy.

Working Together for HIV/AIDS Cures: Advocates

Photo Credit: Amaury Laporte

In my first post in this series, I discussed how scientists and physicians worked to better understand and find new treatments for HIV and AIDS. Scientists didn’t act alone though. Advocacy groups have been and continue to be central to the progress in this field.

Here at New Voices we mainly focus on advocacy, but what does effective advocacy entail? According to a new report by FasterCures and HCM Strategists, the fight for HIV/AIDS patients provides a powerful model for other advocates to follow. This strategy includes 1) attention, 2) knowledge and solutions, 3) community, 4) accountability and 5) leadership.

Bringing attention to the plight of AIDS victims was the first step toward advocating for them. Groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) staged protests in front of government agencies like the FDA and the CDC to raise awareness among administrators and the public regarding the human cost of this disease.

While the theatrical nature of street protesting helped advocates grab the spotlight, they also needed their concerns to be taken seriously. That’s where knowledge and solutions came into play. HIV/AIDS activists educated themselves with the help of researchers like Iris Long about the science behind the disease and the complexities of government processes. This allowed them to identify specific problems they wanted solved, like changing the definition of AIDS to include symptoms that are unique to women or intravenous drug users so these groups could receive government health benefits and pushing the FDA to speed up the approval process for potentially lifesaving therapies.

A third element in HIV/AIDS advocacy was the emphasis on community. Groups like ACT UP and Project Inform brought together people who were suffering from AIDS and the stigma associated with it. There were lots of meetings and events incorporating fun with these serious issues. People are social beings after all and these get-togethers helped to strengthen personal relationships and community ties.

Finally, accountability and leadership go hand in hand. Advocates followed through on their demands, holding policy makers, scientists and regulators accountable for their promises. They did this by singling out "champions" within these three groups who would act as leaders in AIDS policy and research. These groups also identified leaders in the advocacy community to step up to act as unifying voices for their movement.

What might advocates for health-related research learn from the work of groups like ACT UP?

Meet Dr. Kathie L. Olsen

New Voices recently interviewed Dr. Kathie L. Olsen. A neurobiologist by training, Dr. Olsen has spent most of her career working in science policy. She has held several positions at the National Science Foundation including serving as Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer. She has also worked as Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Additionally, she was Acting Associate Administrator for Biological and Physical Research and Chief Scientist for NASA! Dr. Olsen received her Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California in Irvine and her B.S. in biology and psychology from Chatham College. Her postdoctoral fellowship was at Harvard Medical School.

How did you first become interested in science policy?

It was an evolutionary process. In high school I didn’t even like science. When I got to college, I took a general biology course, mostly because it fit into my class schedule. Well, I loved it- so I decided to major in biology and psychology. From there, my career followed the typical route for a research scientist. I got my Ph.D. in neuroscience and did a post doctoral fellowship before getting a position as an assistant professor with my own lab and NIH grant.

I enjoyed what I was doing but I still had some nagging feelings about my career path. For one thing, I’m extroverted and enjoy interacting with people. There were times when I would spend the entire day in lab and never talk to anyone. Also, in your research lab, it’s all about you-your projects, your grants, your publications. Going to the NSF was a great opportunity to see the field more broadly and get a lot done behind the scenes.

Given the many demands placed on early career scientists, how important is it for them to become involved in science advocacy and policy?

It’s critically important. There are a lot of little things that scientists at all stages of their careers can do to get involved. You can work through your professional societies. You can also work through your university to reach out to members of Congress- maybe invite them to your lab. I sometimes speak at grade schools, museums and rotary clubs about science. People have an idea of what a scientist looks like. Researchers can show them the truth. It’s not like what you see on TV. Scientists look just like them.

What advice would you give someone who is interested in science policy?

Stay up to date in your field. In order to be effective in policy, you should go to meetings, read journals and understand the newest technologies. The more research experience you have, the better you will be at explaining what is important. You don’t need to know everything, but you should know who to ask. Also, if you don’t know something, don’t give the wrong answer. Instead, offer to get the information from an expert and then follow through.

What was the biggest challenge for you when you entered the policy field?

More than science goes into policy decisions. Policy makers have to look at a lot of factors when deciding how to prioritize. One of those factors is and should be science, but it’s not the only one. As a scientist, that can be challenging.

What is your outlook for the future of research?

I’m optimistic. America has thrived because of innovation. It drives our economy and improves our health and well-being. We need to prioritize, and the public and Congress understand that research is critical in addressing the challenges of today and tomorrow, and essential in maintaining an acceptable standard of living into the future. They recognize that an investment in research and education is an investment in our future.

New Voices would like to thank Dr. Olsen for speaking with us. Are you feeling inspired to get involved?

Rockin' Out for a Good Cause

This week's Tuneage Tuesday features N.E.D., a sweet band made up of gynecologic oncologists. The band's name stands for No Evidence of Disease and the "rock docs" hope to use their talents to raise awareness of gynecologic cancers and the 90,000 women who struggle with them every year.





Let us know if you know of other scientist musicians! We'd love to feature them on future Tuneage Tuesdays.

Complacency is Not an Option

Earlier today I saw a tweet from one of our New Voices, @JLVernonPhD:

"If you haven't called your Congressional Representative and Senators about the debt ceiling, you are as much at fault as they are."

He couldn't be more right, which is why I'm sharing a modified version of a letter that Research!America's President & CEO Mary Woolley sent to the Research!America membership last week.

Decisions will be made soon. That is why it is critical to speak up now. You know and I know that researchers, research-based institutions, patients and their families and our nation’s economic future will all be worse off if Congress chokes off funding for health research.

• We can’t afford to lag other nations when it comes to R&D. Without research-fueled innovation, our economy will continue to sputter.
• We can’t afford to stall progress against life-threatening and disabling diseases, biding our time as chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autoimmune disorders, depression, PTSD and other health threats take a rapidly increasing human and fiscal toll.
• We can’t afford to dismantle the basic research infrastructure at universities, academic medical centers and independent research institutions across the country, hamstringing the U.S. R&D pipeline.

You and I know that whether the goal is to wage battle against diseases like Alzheimers or to ensure our nation remains competitive in the global economy, it is counterproductive and counterintuitive to divest from medical research. Now we must get that message across to Congress. Research!America is committed to providing advocacy tools to help you do just that.

Today's Tool: A script for when you call Congress.

Phone calls are an effective way to connect with your representatives and can have greater impact than emails or other forms of electronic communication. The script below is just a template. Providing in-district or state examples of the impact of NIH funding will strengthen your argument and demonstrate just how important this issue is to you. It can also be tailored for use in advocating for other key health agencies. Drop us a line in the comments if you would like assistance in tailoring this script.

• Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling from ________ in your district.
• I am calling because I’m very concerned about the current debate over federal spending for programs that are important to me and all Americans.
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) play an essential role in discovering life saving cures and treatments while enhancing our nation’s economic competitiveness.
• Unfortunately, these difficult fiscal times have resulted in over $300 million in cuts to the NIH budget, and obtaining funding for medical research is harder than it has ever been.
• As your constituent, I urge you to support legislation that provides robust NIH funding and I urge you to convey this message to your colleagues in Congress.
• NIH research is crucial to improving the health of all Americans and creates the high quality jobs that our nation needs today.
• Thank you for speaking with me and I look forward to hearing more from your office on this key issue

If we keep fighting together, we will make a difference.

Urge Your Senators to Support NIH in FY 2012

Considering the current budget environment, it has never been more important to speak out about the importance of research to improve health. U.S. Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) are circulating a letter in support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which finances lifesaving research at hospitals, universities and other research institutions across the country.

Take action now! Contact your Senators and request that they sign on to the Casey-Burr letter to show strong, bipartisan support for NIH and its critical mission of advancing medical research.

Invest in Montana research, continue to reap long-term benefits

If science and research are important to you, it is up to you to make the case for it. That means reaching out to the public and policymakers to explain the benefits of research and how it impacts your community.

Richard Bridges, Chair of the Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Montana, recently published an op-ed on the importance of research in Montana:

The real bottom line is that research and discovery, which go hand-in-hand with education, are the very lifelines of innovation that drive job growth and enhance our quality of life. Just as it is important to realize that the rewards of scientific research are many, we must be equally aware that Montana has become a player and directly benefits from the national investment in research.

Speaking as someone who has spent most of my life in a lab, I can safely say we, as scientists, have not done a stellar job of informing people about what we do or how we do it. Unfortunately, this may prove to be a significant omission, as research funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are now on the chopping block despite strong public support for research.

Though we see the tremendous advancements made in medical care on a daily basis, we tend to forget that the seeds of these discoveries may have been planted a decade earlier in basic biomedical research labs like those in Missoula, Hamilton, Great Falls, Butte, Billings or Bozeman.

Indeed, a 2011 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that drugs discovered in public-sector research institutions are "expected to have a disproportionately large therapeutic effect." This means university research labs have become a primary pipeline in development of high-demand medicines and treatments, like those in the University of Montana's Skaggs School of Pharmacy aimed at new drugs for stroke and traumatic brain injury. The federal investment in research also has a proven track record of return. Few cancer survivors or their families would argue that developing life-saving therapies is not worth the expense, given that the NIH budget for cancer research works out to about $2 per American per month.

While many Montanans benefit from and appreciate the research discoveries, they may not be aware that these discoveries are made right in their own state. As the number and competitiveness of scientists in our universities, hospitals and research institutes have grown dramatically in the past several years, so too has our success in attracting NIH grants. Considering that about 60 to 70 percent of this funding typically supports salaries, it translates directly into jobs: skilled technical jobs, sustainable jobs and well-paying jobs. Indeed, a study by the Families USA Foundation revealed that in 2008, the $38 million awarded to Montana by NIH led to the creation of about 700 jobs. Further analysis by Research!America revealed these health research jobs in Montana had an average annual salary around $55,000. Excitingly, this successful trend is continuing, as 2010 saw further increases in both NIH and NSF awards made to Montana.

These dollars support not only faculty and technical staff, but also undergraduate and graduate students. In this manner, jobs created in research labs provide a way for students to pay for their education while gaining valuable hands-on experience, as well as open up the types of employment opportunities that can keep them in the state after graduation. Active research on campus not only brings students into the labs, it also brings current ideas, problem solving and the concept of discovery right into the classroom. This is exactly the type of training and "hands-on" experience that will keep Montana's work force globally competitive.

Recent entrepreneurial developments around both UM and Montana State University also demonstrate that these research successes can extend off campus and lead to creation of private-sector spin-off companies with all the associated economic benefits, the foremost being more jobs. Lastly, this growth in biomedical science provides a welcome opportunity for Montana researchers to specifically address challenges relevant to our state and its residents. Who better to help solve problems related to rural health disparities, asbestosis, addiction, traumatic brain injury, mad cow disease, Lyme disease, brucellosis and chronic wasting disease than the faculty researchers and students on our own campuses and in our own communities?

Our current times require that not just scientists speak up, but that all of us who see the long-term value of science voice a call to continue making our national investment in research a priority. Research is the key to Montana's future.

Do You Know Your Members of Congress?

Either way, today is the day to get in touch with your member in the House of Representatives.

The House is currently crafting a spending bill that may include unprecedented funding cuts to NIH, NSF, CDC, AHRQ and FDA. These cuts represent a major threat to the nation’s health, job growth and competitiveness.

It is critical that you contact your representatives TODAY so they know that cuts to American research are unacceptable.

It's about your job. Your health and the future well-being of your family. It takes 30 seconds to send a message and another 30 seconds to share with your contacts via email or Facebook.

Your minute could be the constituent voice that convinces Congress to protect research.

Patient Voice: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Photo credit: o5com on Flickr
Note: This image is not of anyone related to this post.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is a largely misunderstood condition, which makes March, National CFS Awareness Month, all the more important in bringing it to light. New Voices interviewed a young woman living with CFS symptoms since 2007. From diagnosis to treatment to daily life, she has faced difficulties that many people don’t understand and some people don’t even recognize as a real condition. Thank you to Carol, whose name has been changed, for sharing her story.

New Voices (NV): How would you describe CFS to those people who don’t understand it, especially those who are skeptical of it being a real condition?

Carol: CFS is more than just being tired. It’s not just a minor inconvenience that you work around. It’s an everyday occurrence that is often more debilitating than just a nuisance. CFS demands serious lifestyle changes. Fatigue is definitely a large part of it, but it usually isn’t the most problematic symptom for me. Digestive issues, muscle and joint pain, vertigo, migraine headaches, feeling cold, having trouble focusing, memory problems, and many other symptoms find their way into daily life for someone with CFS.

NV: What kind of limits do you face in your daily activities? Are there particular things that people might otherwise take for granted?

Carol: A large percentage of people with CFS are generally type-A people, so the limits in daily activity are the most frustrating part of the illness. For years, I was incredibly active and involved in everything. I’d play two sports during the same season, while taking dance lessons and staying involved in school clubs and church. I was pretty much never in my dorm room during college because I was involved in so many activities. Now, I can barely work full-time (with three days of telework a week), and I typically crash on most weeknights and weekends.

NV: How does the stigma surrounding CFS affect you – how you cope, who you tell, etc.?

Carol: The stigma surrounding CFS is almost as frustrating as the disease itself. The name implies that I’m just tired all the time. Well, let’s be real – everyone gets really tired at some point, especially in large metro areas with a hurry-up culture. The issue is that most people don’t get past the name of the illness itself to start with. In fact, I had one supervisor who told me that he/she also gets tired a lot and that they could probably get a doctor’s note to work from home, too. They also questioned if I was really sick at all or just using the system to make having a job easier. This is a pretty typical interaction with people who know nothing more than the name of the illness.

NV: Given your experiences, do you find yourself being an advocate about CFS?

Carol: I do, at least in my work, find myself advocating about CFS and explaining it. I’m more focused on getting through the day and keeping up with daily life, but I do find there are moments of education when I get to talk to people about the disease and get past the stigma. It isn’t something that comes up in everyday conversation, but I have talked with a lot of coworkers and family members about CFS.

NV: Do you think that the stigma surrounding CFS has kept people from coming forward and advocating about it?

Carol: Yes, that’s true. If you look at the stories you see in big media, it’s most often people who are well-established in their careers or well-known, so they’re open to talking about their diagnosis. It’s like you have to prove yourself in your work before you can talk about CFS. Because of the stigma, most people don’t want to be known for CFS, let alone advocate.

NV: What message do you have for researchers, who might themselves investigate CFS?

Carol: The research has focused a lot on whether it’s real or not, and finding the cause, but I’d like to see them move forward and look for treatments. We know CFS is here, so let’s deal with it. I don’t know if more stories like mine would help getting people interested and involved, but I hope it does.

American Women in Science

Today's guest blogger, Alice Popejoy - a public policy fellow at the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), shares details of her experience on International Women's Day.

Around the world, International Women’s Day unites people by reflecting on their unique history in the continuing challenge of achieving gender equity. For women’s organizations in Washington, D.C. it is the busiest day of the year, as we come together to reflect, celebrate and collaborate.

At AWIS National*, we began the day with our President Dr. Joan Herbers at the State Department, where she moderated a bi-national webcast featuring EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones, and esteemed scientists from Jakarta, Indonesia to highlight the role of strong science in policy making around the world and to encourage female participation. Before the event finished, I was cabbing it over to Rayburn House Office Building to attend Rep. Donna Edward’s event “Blast Off! Encouraging Our Brightest Stars to Enter and Stay in STEM Fields,” which highlighted the importance of our nation’s diverse talent to be reflected in STEM fields if we are to maintain global competitiveness in innovation.

International Women’s Day infused with excitement about STEM on the Hill is a peak of opportunity for my AWIS agenda, educating policy makers about the barriers to success for women in STEM fields, and advocating for institutional changes that will encourage the full participation of underrepresented groups in the workplace.

But our audience is not always so receptive. In America, we have laws like Title IX that protect women from overt discrimination so it is difficult for some policy makers to understand why there is a need for bills like Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s “Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” (H.R. 889) which promotes gender bias workshops and other policy recommendations. Although I have never experienced overt discrimination, as a young scientist, I have felt isolated, sexualized, and subtly written-off as less capable than my male classmates for being a woman. Thus, my agenda is personally, as well as professionally motivated.

While the legal status of gender discrimination has changed, the reality remains frighteningly similar to past decades. Women are still paid less, receive smaller grants, are provided fewer resources, and have less lab space on average compared to their male counterparts. Women also are less likely to become full and tenured professors, faculty department chairs, and to receive awards for their scholarly research than their male colleagues.

Given that 50% of America’s potential for innovation is female and only 24% of the STEM workforce are women, it is an unfortunate and foolish underutilization of our national resources. Raising awareness about gender bias, making the STEM workplace more family-responsive, and educating lawmakers are just a few of the solutions AWIS continues to promote.

For more information about AWIS and getting involved in advocating for the full participation of women and underrepresented groups in STEM fields, visit http://www.awis.org or follow AWIS on Twitter @AWISnational.


Alice Popejoy is a graduate of Hamilton College with a Bachelor’s degree in Biology and French.We thank her for taking the time to share her experience in science advocacy and wish her the best of luck as she strives to pursue her own PhD in the biological sciences.

Coming Attractions: An Advocacy Survey

Photo Credit: jorge.correa on Flickr

It’s Friday, and you’re probably thinking about whether or not you want to see a movie this weekend. Well, how about two free movie tickets to help you out?

Complete the survey below and help Research!America improve its website and advocacy resources. Plus, if you provide your name and email at the end, you’ll be entered to win a pair of free movie tickets.

Only complete survey responses will be entered into the drawing. The survey closes March 18, with the winner announced soon after. Take about 10 minutes now and you could be seeing movies on us.

Take the Online Advocacy Resources SURVEY

Come to the 2011 National Health Research Forum

The Research!America annual National Health Research Forum is an amazing opportunity to hear leaders of the health research community talk about the issues of today and tomorrow. Below is the full invitation and I definitely recommend anyone who can attending. (Bonus: you can meet some of your fellow New Voices in person!)

Tuesday, March 15, 2011
11:45 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Join Research!America for the 2011 National Health Research Forum on March 15! This annual event brings together heads of federal agencies for health and science research, as well as leaders from industry, academia and patient advocacy.

Lunch will be served at 11:45 a.m. and Research!America's chair, The Honorable John Edward Porter, will provide welcoming remarks beginning at 12:10 p.m. Michael Riley, managing editor of Bloomberg Government, and Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic, will serve as moderators for two back-to-back panels with audience Q&A.

Confirmed panelists include:

• John J. Castellani, president and CEO, PhRMA
• The Hon. Mike Castle, member of U.S. Congress (1993-2011)
• Carolyn M. Clancy, MD, director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, director, National Institutes of Health
• Victor Dzau, MD, chancellor of health affairs, Duke University
• Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Margaret A. Hamburg, MD, commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
• Harry Johns, MBA, president & CEO, Alzheimer\'s Association
• David C. Page, MD, director, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
• Ellen V. Sigal, PhD, founder and president, Friends of Cancer Research
• Elias Zerhouni, MD, president, global research and development, sanofi-aventis

Learn more about the National Health Research Forum, and register online today. Admission for Research!America members is complementary.

Research!America thanks our sponsors: sanofi-aventis; Pfizer, Inc; PhRMA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Battelle; Infocast; Zogby International; and Health Affairs.


For information other than sponsorship opportunities, contact Michelle Hernandez at mhernandez at researchamerica.org.

Make sure to leave us a comment and let us know you're coming!

Act Now to Protect Research

Across the country, groups like FASEB and Research!America are speaking out about the federal budget debates going on in Congress. We must act together and in a unified voice to protect research.

The House of Representatives is debating unprecedented multibillion dollar cuts to the budgets of the NIH, CDC, AHRQ, FDA and NSF. These proposed reductions are a serious threat to our nation's health and economic competitiveness.

Contact your members of Congress today and tell them funding for health research is vital to curing diseases, generating jobs now and in the future, and securing the economic well-being of America. Congress must hear from our community in a unified and timely way or vital research will be at risk.

Take action now.

Have a Heart!

On a day like Valentine's Day, you just can't help but think about the ones you love. Which is what made me think about this updated heart disease and stroke fact sheet in Research!America's Investment in research saves lives and money series:

My favorite part of this new advocacy tool: the survivor story. Here is his story:

In 1991, Mario Signorile of Margate, Florida, knew something was wrong when he suddenly lost feeling in his left arm. After some tests, Mario's doctor told him that he had blockages in his heart and, without treatment, he only had a few weeks to live.

Mario underwent a triple bypass and within weeks was back to his normal activities—including going on cruises with his wife Mary.

Eleven years later, Mario suffered a heart attack that permanently damaged a third of his heart. He received an implantable defibrillator that monitors his heartbeat and administers an electric shock to his heart when there are dangerous irregularities.

In 2008, Mario's defibrillator was replaced with a newer model. The new defibrillator makes it possible for Mario’s doctors to remotely download information about his heartbeat and calibrate the defibrillator without making
an incision.

Since his first defibrillator was implanted, Mario has had only one heart attack, in 2010. He was able to go home after a brief hospital stay and, a month later, celebrated his 90th birthday with his family.

Twenty years after his initial diagnosis, Mario and Mary have watched their family grow and now enjoy visits from their great-grandchildren. "Without medical research, I wouldn't be here today," Mario says. "It prolonged my life."

Investment today saves lives and money now and tomorrow. Research conducted before I was even born helped make it possible for me to grow up with my Pop-Pop in my life; sharing birthday cakes and learning old family stories. This is one of the many reasons why I am an advocate for research. What motivates you?

Economic Impact of Research and Development

Research is a noble pursuit. There are long hours of work, sometimes with no results to show for it; yet, researchers persist. Most scientists I know enter the field because they want to do something that positively affects society. Often, we think of the health impact that research has—treating diseases and saving lives—but there’s more to it than that. Research supports scores of well-paying jobs, which keeps the regional economy strong, even in difficult economic times.

Like others, one reason I pursued research was to help people and society. After graduate school, I realized I wanted to effect change from a broader perspective than my graduate work was allowing, so I accepted this position as a science policy fellow at Research!America.

I have learned a lot about government, advocacy and science policy at Research!America - things I couldn’t have learned in the lab. One of the messages that Research!America focuses on that really interested me was the economic impact of research. It’s been eye-opening to understand the positive effects research can have beyond the health aspects that we typically think of.

It is the right time to get the message out that research and development can bolster the economy. The US is currently in a difficult position. The economy has slowed considerably, unemployment is through the roof, and you can’t listen to the news without hearing how large the country’s debt is. Many of members of the new Congress have vowed to cut spending to ameliorate the debt. But, according to others, we can’t jump-start the economy without spending.

The recent report by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform clearly stated its opinion on the matter, “…we must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create jobs.” Let’s hope our legislators understand this point.

The next post in this series describes some of the economic benefits of research and development.


This is Part 1 of 4 in our Economic Impact of R&D series.
Part 1 - Economic Impact of Research & Development
Part 2 - Biosciences: Where the Jobs Are
Part 3 - Economic Impact of R&D Ranked by State
Part 4 - Show Me the Money

The Civic Scientist

Our jobs encompass a major part of our lives. When we think about our professions, it is essential to consider how our community of professionals is perceived by others, especially policymakers.

This is true for scientists. Science is vital to the well being of our nation and that is why practicing scientists and even students of science receive special treatment from the government, often in the form of grants, subsidies, or scholarships.

At the end of the day, we have policymakers (often without science backgrounds) making decisions about science that could have negative impacts on research and the scientific community. The scientific community often criticizes policymakers on the grounds that they don’t really ‘get’ science, yet few scientists have any training or interest in policy or politics.

However, when scientists combine their academic credentials along with a desire to change the world, the results can be dramatic. Well known examples include Albert Einstein, whose writings on the threat of nuclear proliferation informed policymakers on the specter of a nuclear armed world. James Hansen, now at Columbia University, was the first to alert members of Congress about the dangers of climate change. You may not recognize his name, but a PhD physicist and former professor, Dr. Vern Ehlers recently stepped down as the representative from Michigan’s 3rd district after a distinguished career in Congress.

What these individuals all have in common is a commitment to science, but also an awareness of the role that science plays in the well being of our nation. They dedicated their intellect and zeal to ensure that science would continue to serve society, while advocating for a government that was willing to support a vibrant scientific community.

Your New Congress

Yesterday, your new Congress was sworn into office for the 112th time in America’s history. I was lucky enough to be on the Hill for the occasion, watching the ceremonies from a closed circuit television at a reception in the Library of Congress.

One of the most symbolic moments of the ceremony was when the House gavel transferred from the outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to the new speaker. As John Boehner stood by, waiting for Speaker Pelosi to conclude her remarks and hand off the gavel, he was visibly nervous, fidgeting, and seemed anxious for his turn to offer his thoughts to the chamber. Not surprisingly, he was wiping away tears before he even began to speak.

Members of Congress aren’t that different from you or me. They have weaknesses, make mistakes, and often have only a surface-level understanding of the multitude of issues that cross their desk. This is why they rely heavily upon their staff, who in turn rely heavily upon experts to provide them with the best information possible. Hence, your expertise and awareness can make a difference in changing policy in the US. But in order for that to happen you must not be afraid to reach out to your representatives, tell them your story, and why they should listen. It could be the first step in improving our nation.