Working Together on HIV/AIDS: Scientists

Photo courtesy of the NIH

This year marks the 30th anniversary of two mysterious outbreaks in America. One was of a form of pneumonia called Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and the second was a skin cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma. Both diseases were quite rare, especially considering the patients were all young men in their 20's. These outbreaks actually marked the beginning of our awareness of a new disease we now know as AIDS.

Today’s post is the first in a series about HIV/AIDS, including where we were and how far we’ve come in treating this devastating disease. However, I’m not planning on focusing on the science behind HIV/AIDS since others have already done a great job of explaining this.

Instead, I want to talk about the different groups that were involved in the amazing progress we’ve made in our understanding and treatments. In just 30 years, HIV/AIDS has gone from a death sentence to a manageable chronic disease. Who made that possible?

The first answer that probably comes to mind is scientists and physicians who had to figure out what caused the symptoms they were seeing in clinics and how the disease was spreading. This was a daunting challenge, but with the support of the US government as well as governments around the world, they identified the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and figured out how it was transmitted.

Almost two decades before the emergence of HIV/AIDS, scientists had the idea that cancers might be caused by a special type of virus called a retrovirus. They developed a drug against retroviruses in the hopes that is would cure these cancers. Unfortunately it didn’t work. But, HIV is a retrovirus, so they were able to revisit their old drug. The drug, AZT, appeared to slow the progression from HIV infection to AIDS and represented the first major breakthrough for infected individuals. Not bad for a failed experiment!

Since then, science has produced several other drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and many people are living long and symptom-free lives as a result. But scientists didn’t work alone. In my next post in this series, I’ll discuss the crucial role advocacy groups played in fighting this epidemic.

Spending cuts again?

Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America, September 15, 2010

Appropriations season is upon us! This is that special time of year when Congress makes funding recommendations for all discretionary programs. I wanted to take this opportunity to provide a quick rundown of how health research agencies have fared, and what the prospects are for the next fiscal year.

As part of the recent FY 2011 budget deal, the White House and Congressional leaders agreed to a budget that would fund the government through September 30, 2011. Remember, this was the 11th hour deal that narrowly averted a government shutdown. However, this deal resulted in budget cuts to several health research agencies.

NIH was cut by $320M (1.2%), CDC received a whopping 11% cut – dialing their funding back to 2003 levels, the NSF was cut by $53M, which will mean about 250 fewer awards, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was cut by $25M (6%). The FDA was given a $107M boost in funding (for FY 2011), but the House recently passed an FY 2012 cut of $285M.

In general, the House is highly averse to any new spending and is even reluctant to accept flat budgets for discretionary agencies. Many of the new Members in the House feel that they are in office to slash agency budgets and deeply cut government spending.

On the Senate side, Members are more open to flat-funding government agencies. It’s hard to say what all of this will mean for health research in the FY 2012, but given the current political climate and state of our national debt, we can expect cuts to continue.

That is why it is more important than ever that you reach out to your representatives and let them know that further cuts are unacceptable. At the end of the day you are their constituent - this means that your representative’s work for you. If you talk, they will listen.

An Issue Close to my Heart

The heart is an amazing organ. I work on heart development which makes me a little biased, but let me tell you why I think so. Every cell in your body requires oxygen and the way oxygen gets around is in blood. The heart is required for pumping blood that has been loaded up with oxygen to the tiniest capillaries in your brain and the very tips of your fingers and toes. Once the blood has given up its oxygen, it has to be pumped back from the furthest reaches of your body to your lungs to reload. The heart does all of that pumping. But wait- there’s more.

The heart is one of the first organs to form during embryonic development. It starts out as a simple tube but quickly folds up and pinches off into hollow chambers. Think of those balloon animals you got at birthday parties as a kid, that’s what your heart has to do only it has to work while it’s doing it! This is something like driving a car while building its engine at the same time.

Needless to say, heart development is very complicated and a lot of things can and do go wrong. In fact, congenital heart defects are one of the most common birth defects in America and the leading cause of birth defect-related death. Heart defects are present in 50 out of every 1000 live births. Apart from the emotional difficulties of dealing with these illnesses, they also come with a high economic cost. The lifetime costs associated with heart defects for all of the babies born in a year exceeds $1 billion.

While physicians have made a lot of progress in diagnosing and repairing these defects, little is known about what causes them. This is where basic science comes in. Scientists are hard at work trying to understand how the heart forms and what genes are involved in the process. We have to first understand normal development if we want to figure out what is going wrong when defects occur.

If scientists can identify the key genetic players at work in heart development, it could lead to improved screening and treatments. In order to shed light on congenital heart disease they need a lot of support which is just one more reason why we need to make sure the NIH has the funding it needs. The tiniest Americans are depending on it.

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.

More with Marcy Maguire, NIH fellow

Yesterday, we shared the first half of our interview with Marcy Maguire, MD. Marcy is a fellow at NIH doing research on reproductive health.

NV: What are the potential applications of your research or treatments that could result?

Marcy: The applications for the first project are pretty theoretical at this point, and its purpose is to add to our basic understanding of reproduction. For the second project, its applications are also unknown, but the results are probably more understandable and interesting to the non-scientist. A woman’s fertility declines with increasing age, and by 40 it can be difficult to conceive spontaneously. Most women undergo menopause around age 51. Given the increasing tendency to delay childbearing in our modern society and the ongoing controversies surrounding hormone replacement therapy after menopause, the cellular processes associated with age-related decline in fertility and the onset of menopause are both interesting and socially relevant.

NV: You've explained how your work contributes to infertility treatment and care. Can you talk a little about your impact on your community? In other words, how does your NIH fellowship allow you to make a contribution to your local economy and the health of others?

Marcy: I’m the mother of a 3 year old daughter, who goes to daycare. I rent a house in Bethesda, and contribute to my local economy in pretty normal ways-grocery shopping, restaurants, etc…I think my contribution to the health of others is probably a more unique and interesting story.

Although my last year at NIH has been research-focused, I still see patients. What is great about my clinical experience is that I see patients who are afflicted with very rare disorders. By coming to the NIH, these patients are given the opportunity to be cared for by physicians with expertise in the particular disease that afflicts them. The patients in turn contribute to science by allowing researchers here to study their health in the context of their disorder.

Also, because we are government funded, we are heavily connected to the military system, especially Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center. We are able to treat men and women in the military who are experiencing infertility or who require specialist reproductive endocrine care. The great indirect benefit to all of this is that our interactions with patients often spur individual research projects. Every patient is unique and there is something to be learned from every person we meet.

NV: Do you have any memorable experiences from your time working with patients?

Marcy: I’m lucky in that I can watch the gradual results of a woman’s infertility treatment take shape-in the form of a child! There is one couple that I treated early on in my fellowship who now has a child. I’ve run into them a few times outside of the hospital. It makes me so happy when I see them as a family, and to know that I contributed to that is a pretty gratifying feeling.

NV: What advice would you give to someone interested in becoming a researcher or an advocate for research?

Marcy: My advice would really be to just dive in, find a hospital or lab in your area, and expose yourself to multiple fields to see what triggers your interest. There are so many fields of medicine to specialize in, and the earlier you can become exposed the better.

My other advice would be to get started as early as possible. There is an unbelievable amount of information out there, so the more time you give yourself to build your knowledge base, the better.


Special thanks to Marcy for sharing her research with us. We look forward to seeing the results of her projects.

If you're interested in sharing your research story on New Voices, email us at programs_at_researchamerica.org.

Interview with Marcy Maguire, NIH fellow

Today we're sharing the first half of our interview with NIH fellow Marcy Maguire, MD

NV: When did your interest in science and medicine begin?

Marcy: I have always been interested in science, probably because my dad, who is also a physician researcher encouraged curiosity and analytic thought when I was younger. I wasn’t sure I wanted to become a doctor until I took a course on human genetics, reproduction, and public policy in the molecular biology department at Princeton University. This course covered many interesting topics, including in vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis i.e. PGD, (the process whereby disease-free embryos are pre-selected to be implanted), and even cloning. I thought the science of reproduction and the early stages of embryo growth and development were fascinating.

After Princeton, I studied medicine at the Medical College of Virginia for medical and then completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts Medical Center. Presently, I am completing the final month of my reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship at the NIH. The first 1.5 years of my fellowship were largely clinical and patient-based while my final 1.5 years have been basic-science-oriented.

NV: When did you begin to specialize in OBGYN? What about infertility inspired you to focus your time and energy in this field?

Marcy: In med school you don’t really specialize in anything, kind of like law school. You go and learn a lot and graduate but you don't really specialize in a particular medical field. During residency you learn how to care for patients within a particular medical field, like obstetrics and gynecology. If you want to focus in-depth on an even more particular subset of patients, you complete fellowship training in a subspecialty within your field- for me reproductive endocrinology and infertility within the field of ob/gyn.

What really locked me into infertility was my interest in reproduction and genetics. For instance, a couple might come in, both of whom are carriers for Huntington’s or Tay-Sachs disease, and who didn’t want to pass the disease onto their children. The idea that you could select embryos without mutated/affected genes and thereby enhance the chance that such a couple would have a healthy baby is a very powerful thing. Now that I have spent a few years doing research in reproduction, I have come to realize that not only is this a fascinating field, but it is also incredibly conducive to research. There are a million fascinating questions that remain to be answered.

NV: Now that you are doing research in your 3rd year, what are you researching? What questions are you seeking to answer?

Marcy: I’m doing two projects. The first involves reproductive hormone receptor signaling in mouse ovarian cells. Reproductive hormone receptors play a major role in ovulation, menstruation, and many, many other cellular processes. A better understanding of how these receptors work could help us to better understand and possibly treat infertility, endocrine disorders, and even some types of cancer.

My second project deals with ovarian aging. I am comparing steroidogenic enzymes and regulatory molecules in ovaries from old and young mice.


Check in tomorrow when Marcy shares more about her work, it's applications and advice for early-career researchers.

Snapshot: Migraines

Comic credit: Linda Causey

I started getting migraines when I was 16, a genetic gift from my mom. (Thanks, mom!) I participated in clinical trials throughout high school, after which they began to recede slightly. In college I began noticing that alcohol was a trigger, so I stopped drinking.

After college the migraines began ramping up, but as they did two fortunate things happened: I met a great neurologist and I started recognizing the various triggers. Over four years we have developed a strategy for both preventing and treating my migraines. I now take daily preventatives, and carry a stash of medication with me at all times.

Migraines are often misunderstood as merely headaches, but worse. Migraines are a completely different animal, characterized by debilitating neurological symptoms like aura, nausea and intense throbbing. Add to this the incredible diversity of symptoms and reactions to medications that migraine sufferers experience, and a migraine is not just a minor inconvenience; it can be completely debilitating.

While a headache can often go away with an over-the-counter treatment, like ibuprofen, one of my migraines would laugh hysterically were you to offer an ibuprofen to treat them.

Migraines affect as much as 10% of the population, including children. According to the Migraine Research Foundation, migraines contribute to 113 million missed days from work each year. Therefore not only are they a serious impediment for individuals, but their incidence constitutes a wider public health problem.

There are many treatment and prevention options available, but they often require a substantial investment in time - think years, not days - to determine what works, and a dedicated neurologist who can help a patient track their treatment. Despite years of treatment, my migraines have reduced in intensity and frequency, but not been eliminated.

As difficult as my experience with migraines has been, it actually falls on the luckier side of the spectrum. The reality for many migraine sufferers is mixed: a successful regimen of medication will often only work temporarily or sporadically.

My mom got her first migraine while pregnant with me. During my childhood, I can remember being woken up in the middle of the night to her crying; sometimes my dad would take her to the hospital just to receive pain medication strong enough to put her to sleep. She would give herself shots in the leg and sit in complete darkness for five days at a time.

If sporadic migraines weren’t bad enough, around 4% of the US population has daily migraines. A family friend has had a migraine for three years, almost uninterrupted. He has lost his job and basically remains in seclusion.

So what can be done? Clearly, more research is required to understand migraines, especially the factors that determine susceptibility and treatment success. Some of the current research examines genetic factors, changes in brain circuits, the role of estrogen, and the prevalence of “rebound headaches”.*

For the sake of all Americans who suffer from migraines, more research and better options are vital. Migraine research represents another critical part of the NIH portfolio. For patients, research could answer questions about why drugs work well for some but not others, thus cutting down the trial and error time. But most of all, it would spell relief for the millions who spend so much of their life in debilitating pain.


*Rebound headaches are a perfect example of the uncertainty and constant balancing act that migraine management requires. Some medications will take away your migraine for that moment, but will increase the odds of a rebound headache occurring at a similar time the following day, thus giving you a rebound headache.

Social Math & Priorities

Yesterday, my colleague Brian wrote about rapping economists (a brilliant Tuneage Tuesday idea!). This passage really got me thinking about priorities:

The idea of social math is presenting complex issues in a way that can be easily understood by anyone: For example, a 2010 report by the National Retail Federation found that graduates were expected to receive nearly $90 in gifts – in all, spending on grad’s gifts were expected to reach $3.9 billion.

Few of us can comprehend a billion dollars, unless you had boatloads of Microsoft stock back when it took off. Social math, then, insists we take another step: Find a way to translate. Knowing our audience here, that $3.9 billion could fund all but two institutes at the National Institutes of Health for a year – and in many cases, for several years. (Even the two exceptions, NCI and NIAID, would have a majority of their budgets covered by that amount.) The same $3.9 billion would fund 8,193 NIH research grants, according to FY10 numbers.

Social math is finding the common ground between a niche and the mainstream.

The case described above doesn't just elaborate on the social math - making it simpler to see what billions of dollars represent - it makes a point about the value of our dollars. If we're willing to spend $3.9 billion dollars on stuffed animals in graduation garb, balloons, and alma mater mugs, would an extra dollar a week in taxes to advance research be a real burden on American finances? For the cost of a beanie baby or tassel a piece, could we mark an important genome? Treat cancer? Provide a healthier future for all those graduates?

I'm not saying don't celebrate or shower grads with gifts (most of my first apartment's security deposit came from graduation gifts, and I still have a Minnie Mouse that plays Pomp and Circumstance). I'm just saying that in tight times, it's important to make investments in the things that really matter. Whether that's siblings using air horns to cheer for the first person in their family to receive a diploma or the government keeping pace with inflation at federal research agencies.

Priorities matter. What are ours?

Not-at-All-Scary Friday the 13th Round-Up

It was a scary start to the day with Blogger down, but we're back in business and this Friday the 13th isn't too scary at all. In fact, since you didn't get a post yesterday, today's round-up has a few bonus links and a new summer feature to keep you reading until we're back on Monday.

Making the Case for Investment in Research
For those who wonder why it's important to spend NIH money on global health, here's one great reason: a dramatic decrease in infant mortality. For about $208 per life, 97 families are celebrating a new member of their family. Since that doesn't include the value beyond the control of this study, in the end, it will probably cost even less per life saved. Knowledge is power, lasts a lifetime, and can make more lives possible.

Senator Shelby of Alabama is pushing to save NIH from cuts in FY2012.

Advocacy Around the Web
Research shows that people portray their personalities on social networking sites more honestly than anecdotal evidence has us believe. All the more reason to get out there and tell our science stories and defend research while being ourselves.

We're all excited for summer, but remember that with sunny days come summer sunburns. This well-done PSA - Dear 16 year old me - regarding melanoma should be shared with every teenager you know.

The Vatican has spoken out on climate change and made some strong statements about how we should take action now.

News of the Fun
As you might have guessed, kissing is a mood booster.  

Voting is open until the end of the day today on Doodle for Google, a program to encourage young Americans to put in pictures their life's ambition.You can vote once per age group, and there are many fun doodles to choose from. Also, for a country that's falling behind in math and science, it's interesting just how many of the finalists have science themes.

New Features
As New Voices begins its third summer, we now have enough content to feature historical posts from New Voices. The new segment will appear in round-ups, and if you like it and want it to be an even more regular feature, let us know. Without further ado....

On this day in  New Voices:
2010 - Sarah wrote about Failures in U.S. Chemical Regulation
2009 - FlyGal wrote about U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation

A second stop at the NIH

I’ve already written about how one of my most exciting moments at Research!America was visiting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus for the first time. And in my second visit earlier this week, the excitement hadn’t worn off. It’s likely because, this time, I and a few other Research!America staff got to see first-hand many of the things at the heart of the NIH: its history of discovery, its state-of-the-art clinical research hospital, and its talented researchers.

The day started with a walk led by our tour guide, Tara Mowery, who told us about the NIH’s origins as a “hygienic laboratory” located on Staten Island back in the late 1800s. Eventually the National Institute (no “s”) of Health moved to DC and found a home in nearby Bethesda. One of many sights on our tour was building 1 – current location of Director Francis Collins’ office, and the first of nearly 70 buildings on the NIH campus. Soon after, we entered building 10, the NIH’s hospital (pictured above), where we saw how researchers are literally taking their work from bench (a few hundred yards over) to bedside. John Burklow, director of the Office of Communications, followed up our tour with a presentation on the NIH’s organizational structure. There are 27 institutes and centers, but as Burklow emphasized, they’re all part of one NIH that is putting out news-worthy findings each and every day. Part of Burklow’s job, he added, is to ensure that the public understands the NIH’s expansive reach, especially with 85% of NIH research being done externally, at universities and other institutions across the country and around the world.

We then visited Dr. Marcus Chen, a staff clinician for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr. Chen’s work is the kind of news-worthy research that Burklow had just described, as the Laboratory of Cardiac Energetics is studying methods for decreased radiation in computerized tomography (CT) scans of the heart. There have been quite a few major news stories recently about growing public concern over radiation and the increased use of high-radiation diagnostic tests, especially among children. By modifying certain parameters and using computer algorithms to improve imagery, Chen and his fellow researchers have been able to dramatically reduce radiation exposure. Pending further tests and development, this research could become the basis for safer, more patient-friendly CT scanning techniques at a hospital near you.

To wrap up our tour, Dr. Chen agreed to show us one of the CT scanners being used by his staff. It took a while, however, because machine after machine was being used for a patient. Eventually, we did get to see a scanner up close, but the wait was an excellent reminder of the NIH’s value. The clinical work done at its hospital not only serves and likely benefits patients today, but with continued discovery and development, the NIH also benefits the patients of tomorrow.

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.

Eye of the Tired

Photo credit: flickrPrince on Flickr

Do me a favor. Before you continue reading this post, get up and get away from your computer screen for a few minutes. The rest of this post will be waiting for you when you get back.

-----

There. Don’t your eyes feel better?

It’s “Save Your Vision” week in the US, and while most of us turn a blind eye to our health for the sake of computer screens, TVs, and smartphones, it’s time to take a step back – literally and figuratively.

Take a look at these facts:

• The average American adult spends more than eight hours in front of a computer, TV or other screen.
• Nearly 90% of people who spend three hours or more in front of a screen report problems related to eye strain.
• Optometrists report more than 10 million eye exams are done each year because of computer-related problems.

If those numbers make you perk up in your chair, good. The American Optometric Association recommends good posture as part of maintaining an eye-healthy environment at your computer. The AOA also recommends keeping the screen 20-28 inches away from your eyes, and 4-5 inches below horizontal eye level. As you did a few seconds ago, take breaks, too. For every two continuous hours of computer use, get away for 15 minutes, or try the 20-20-20 rule: 20 seconds of looking at something 20 feet away, every 20 minutes.

There are, of course, other ways to be kind to your eyes. Researchers have long recommended a diet rich in beta-carotene, which means orange-colored fruits and vegetables (carrots – it’s not a myth!), as well as certain dark green vegetables, like spinach and kale. You should also protect your eyes from UV rays by wearing sunglasses, and avoid developing chronic diseases like diabetes, which can affect your eyes. One other recommendation that’s gaining ground is taking omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in fish and fish oil supplements. A study published in Science Translational Medicine found that mice ingesting omega-3 fatty acids showed less abnormal blood vessel growth, which could be a factor in worsening eyes.

Whatever changes you might make in your daily habits, those small changes could make a big difference in your eye health. Risking one more lame pun, I’d say the facts are clear for all to see.

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.

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!

The Science of Farting

The annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting was recently held in downtown Washington, DC. The meeting is a great opportunity to connect with colleagues and attend fascinating scientific lectures on a variety of topics from brain-machine interface to the science of farting.

Yes, today’s video post answers an age-old question: how much farting force would be required to achieve liftoff? The speaker is Chris Smith from the University of Cambridge and creator of the podcast The Naked Scientists.




Although the subject of his talk may seem ridiculous, it was certainly memorable. And herein lies an invaluable insight into effective communication – if you want your message to stick, make it stand out. At this very same meeting were dozens of other presentations on scientific topics, but I would bet that none used humor and sheer weirdness as tools for connecting with the audience and ultimately ensuring a lasting impression.

How could you use humor and weirdness to make your next presentation more memorable?

First Stop: NIH

Image courtesy of USAID

When I arrived in DC a couple of weeks ago, I was excited to see many famous places for the first time: the White House, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and others. Which major attraction did I see first? The NIH campus.

Alright, it might not be every tourist’s top choice, but the NIH campus in Bethesda, MD is a place I’ve heard and read about for years. So when Heather asked me to attend a lecture there by Dr. Rajiv Shah, the current USAID (US Agency for International Development) administrator, I was more than happy to visit.

It turned out, however, that I wasn’t the only one having my “first time” on the NIH campus. NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins introduced Shah and noted that this was the first time a sitting USAID administrator had addressed the NIH. It was a bit a surprising: two closely related – and physically close – government agencies never having that kind of interaction.

As Shah soon described, the bond between USAID and the NIH certainly has plenty of room to grow. He first brought up a few cases in which the NIH has already contributed to USAID work: An NIH-funded study called First Breath has led to the development of a program against newborn asphyxia. An NIH study that discovered circumcision can reduce HIV transmission has brought on a circumcision campaign in Swaziland. And NIH studies on antiretrovirals and gel microbicides have USAID looking further into those HIV prevention strategies.

There remain plenty of areas, however, where the NIH’s potential for discovery and development can yield great benefits for USAID. In the fight against malaria, for example, Shah said, “we must invent new solutions:” faster methods of diagnosis, safer insecticides, cheaper medicines, and – the biggest potential coup – a cheap, effective vaccine. The two agencies share many of the same targets – malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis – and by working together, they can shorten “the distance between bench and bush.”

It was Shah’s first address to the NIH, and he immediately gave both agencies plenty to think about in the years ahead as their efforts become more unified. “This collaboration is the most powerful building tool we have,” Shah said, adding that “When we have this massive engine focused […] it will be a huge win for the world.”

My hope now is that everyone involved in promoting health – whether health care providers, researchers, or their supporters – recognize that this “massive engine” should be interacting, working together, and, of course, visiting one another. The majority of people might not have the opportunity to visit the NIH, like I did, but together we can bring its discoveries and its benefits to their doorstep.

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