Alzheimer's in America

Neurological disorders are straining America. These illnesses can deprive us of our happiness, alter our personality, and cause untoward suffering for our loved ones.

In addition, society bears a massive cost burden for neurological disorders, estimated to be $350 billion per year including direct and indirect costs. Alzheimer’s disease, for example, has an annual cost of $183 billion in the US alone.

The NIH spends about $450 million per year on Alzheimer’s research, which may sound significant, but it is equal to only one quarter of one percent of the $183 billion that Alzheimer’s costs Americans. Given the current fiscal environment, it will be an uphill battle to secure new funding for Alzheimer’s research, even though estimates show that 14 million baby boomers will be living with the disease by 2050.

Patients with Alzheimer’s rely heavily on Medicare to cover their medical bills. The average cost of an Alzheimer’s patient to Medicare is $13,000 per year, which is $8,500 more than the average cost of Medicare recipients without the disease.

As a nation, if we want to reign in the deficit we must control the cost of health care. Bringing new treatments to market could help delay the onset of Alzheimer’s and one day, eradicate the disease all together. In doing so, we could save billions in care costs.

But in order to take advantage of today’s scientific opportunities, we must resist the urge to cut spending on research. Cuts will set all of us back and deprive a generation of the hope that robust medical research represents. Make sure Congress knows where you stand and convince others that share your views to reach out. We are, after all, in this together.

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.

How Much is a Good Teacher Worth?

Comic credit: Surviving the World

Most of the time when we talk about education, we talk about a greater need for focus on STEM topics, keeping religion out of the science classroom, or issues in higher education. If we want to think about things in a new way, maybe we need to start considering different options. This Tuneage Tuesday (2 days late), listen to this NPR Planet Money podcast about a plan to revolutionize the U.S. economy that revolves around public-school teachers. The story begins at 3:30 into the podcast.

What would you do to revolutionize education?

Welcome to Budget 101

Image courtesy of Rep. Huizenga

Capitol Hill is buzzing over the budget these days. But for those of us not fully in tune with the budget process, all of the talk might sound like little more than, well, a buzz in our ears.

We can’t, however, brush it off: budgets for the NIH, FDA, CDC, and other important agencies are in danger of being cut. This is a time for science and research advocates to both understand and get involved in the federal budgeting process. So, consider yourself automatically enrolled in Budget 101, your introduction to the federal budget.

First, it’s important to realize that in Congress right now there are two concurrent arguments about two separate budgets:

Fiscal Year 2012
Affecting: Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2012
What’s going on? On Feb. 14, President Obama submitted his 2012 budget proposal to Congress. The budget will now proceed through Congressional committees and so forth (see below).

Fiscal Year 2011
Affecting: Now – Sept. 30, 2011
What’s going on? The 2011 budget was meant to have been completed and signed months ago, but a lack of movement in Congress has left the government functioning under a continuing resolution (CR). The CR stipulates that, for the time being, all areas of the federal government receive funding at the same level as the previous (2010) fiscal year. The CR, however, expires on March 4, at which time the federal government will shut down if no budget is ready. Currently, the Republican-controlled House has passed its own version of the FY2011 budget, but the Democrat-controlled Senate will likely block that budget, forcing a compromise.

As you can see, there’s been a holdup in the FY 2011 budget-making process. Here’s how the process is supposed to run, with a focus on how funding for agencies like the NIH goes through:

Step 1:
About one year before the president’s budget proposal, individual agencies (like the NIH, FDA, etc.) begin planning for the latest budget. They work with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to come up with a budget strategy that also address the president’s priorities – fields and issues in which he’d like to see greater investment.

Step 2:
About six months before the president’s budget proposal, agencies have submitted their budget proposals and are negotiating with the OMB. By January, budget proposals should be finalized and compiled.

Step 3:
The president submits his budget proposal to Congress in February.

Step 4:
House and Senate budget committees discuss their own overall goals for spending and government revenue, which are then voted on. In cases of disagreement between the houses, a conference committee is set up. This step should take place February through May.

Step 5:
House and Senate appropriations committees take a closer look at the individual agency budgets and write bills that are then voted on by the individual house. Again, when there is disagreement between the Senate and House, a conference committee settles the difference. This step should take place June through September.

Step 6:
Appropriations bills are sent to the president - hopefully before Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year. That, however, did not happen in time for FY2011, so a continuing resolution was passed instead. Continuing resolutions are not uncommon, but it is rare for a resolution to expire and lead to a government shutdown.

Step 7:
Agencies receive their funding.

If you’d like to learn more, check out The Washington Post’s interactive feature on the budgeting process, or this AAAS presentation on the budget process and R&D investment. Also, be on the lookout over the coming weeks as Research!America’s own website is updated with information about the federal budget.

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.

Show Me the Money

As we saw yesterday, the biosciences can benefit a state’s economy. Thus, states should take the initiative to attract biosciences. There are several avenues that should be explored in order to develop a bioscience industry, which have been nicely laid out in the BIO report “State Legislative Best Practices in Support of Bioscience Industry Development” and summarized here:

• Technology Transfer:

States can put in place technology transfer programs to help with the commercialization process of new technologies developed through research, which will allow the incorporation of knowledge and innovation into the marketplace.

• Specialized Facilities:

Bioscience research requires specialized facilities, which can be costly. State governments can help offset this cost to support small and emerging bioscience companies.

• Venture Capital/Discovery Funds:

Innovative research and its commercialization often require private equity funding. States can help by passing measures that encourage venture capital and discovery fund investments in the bioscience sector.

• Bioscience Workforce Initiatives:

In order to maintain a bioscience industry, there must be an educated and technically proficient workforce. States should ensure that they can educate and retain qualified employees.

• Supportive Business Climate Incentives:

It is the role of legislators to ensure a public policy framework that maintains a stable business climate and allows incentives to attract biotech companies to the region.

Many states have begun bioscience initiatives that cover one or more of these enterprises. What is your state doing to support biosciences and bolster the economy?


This is Part 4 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

Economic Impact of R&D Ranked by State

We saw earlier that R&D investment has far-reaching economic effects. This is true in individual states as well as across the nation.

To understand the economic impact of R&D in each state, I gathered the numbers in every state reflecting:

• the amount of money each state has invested in R&D
  
• the number of jobs in the bioscience sector
  
• the average salary in the biosciences
  
• a score encompassing societal factors that reflect the health of each state’s economy, such as unemployment and underemployment rates.

Using this information, I calculated an economic impact score, which reflects the effect R&D has on each state’s economy. For ease of comparison among states, each state was ranked based on this score, and you can see it visually on the map. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are leading the nation, while Louisiana and Mississippi are falling behind.



To find information about R&D investment and jobs in your state, take a look at Research!America's website.

In the next post in this series, see what a state can do to garner the economic benefits of R&D.


This is Part 3 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

Biosciences: Where The Jobs Are

As the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform understands, smart spending is beneficial and will ultimately jumpstart the economy. Investment in R&D actually creates well-paying jobs in a time of record unemployment, thus strengthening the economy.

• In 2008, the first year of the recession, the bioscience industry was able to support a 1.4% growth in employment while total private sector employment fell by 0.7 percent.
  

• There are over 1.3 million Americans employed in the bioscience sector, where jobs pay about $22,000 more than average private sector wages.
  

• Earnings for workers in the bioscience sector have increased by 10.1 percent since 2001, whereas earnings for private sector employees have increased by only 3.2 percent in the same time period.

The biosciences have an even larger impact outside of their own industry.

• For every new job in the biosciences, another 5.8 jobs are created, employing even more Americans.
  

• Funding R&D boosts business activity: Every dollar invested by the NIH - a large funder of medical research in the US - generates more than 2 dollars in state economic output, for a total of over $50 billion in new business activity generated in the US in 2007.

The money invested in research creates well-paying jobs and circulates through the economy, benefiting communities, states and the country. This is true for the nation as whole as well as individual states. Check out the next post in this series to understand the impact on states.


This is Part 2 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

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