Opal’s lab recently discovered a connection between motor dysfunction in mouse models of SCA1 and VEGF, a protein that promotes the growth of blood vessels. His lab wants to study this link in patients, but whether clinical studies can begin will ultimately depend on receiving grants from the NIH next year.
This doomsday scenario has some wondering: is U.S. biological research too dependent on the NIH? At many universities, the NIH pays for almost everything: grad students, professor salaries and equipment. Nature published an analysis on December 6 week that suggests this relationship can actually stifle scientific ingenuity. But even the study’s author, John Ioannidis, believes research funding “should be dramatically increased overall, and even more so for investigators with bold ideas.”
Last week the Associated Medical Schools of New York held a press conference urging Congress to find a resolution. One in 10 doctors in the U.S. is trained in New York, and medical centers are among the state’s biggest employers. The New York economy stands to lose approximately $1.25 billion in 2013 if the NIH budget cuts are made.
“It would imperil thousands of people,” said Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who was joined at the meeting by fellow U.S. House representatives Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), academic deans from NYC-based medical centers and patient advocates, including 14-year-old cancer survivor Brianna Commerford.
Fighting back tears during her testimony, Brianna expressed her gratitude for the scientists who discovered the drug that saved her life. “No kid should have to endure the pain and suffering that comes with a cancer diagnosis,” she says. “Research is a sign of hope for these kids and their families. Taking funds away will certainly take the hope away…from everybody.”
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentJoin with Life Technologies, cancer researchers, and patient advocates across the country working to prevent sequestration. While there’s still time, let Congress know you support the funding that advances breakthroughs in cancer and other disease research here. http://owl.li/fZlAQ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Federal Government is broke and beyond its ability to pay for things like research. The sequestration does not go far enough in my opinion. We should cut all departments until we have a zero deficit. Then we should continue this until we begin paying off the 16 trillion dollars the general fund owes, and begin putting money away for the 100 to 200 trillion in obligations for medicare, federal retirements and other obligations our politicians have gotten us into. Just as we must cut when we run out of money, the government must do the same or we will continue building debt until we default and the country becomes a third world nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read many reasons why taxes should be raised, but this one is the most lame excuse yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm just curious, zingerb, about 2 things:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) From where do your economic theories arise? Complete gutting of discretionary spending would only cripple investment in the future, and set American science back decades(or more likely, deal it a death blow). Could you outline how cutting discretionary spending will balance the federal budget? (Hint: it won't)
2) Why in blazes would someone who is so seemingly against government sponsored research be on a site like this?
Really? In what way is gutting federal support of research into treatments and cures, "lame"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anything about “”? Research =/= attending conferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anything about "gutting federal support of research"? Research =/= attending conferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm an older American. I have a knee replaced and have been a patient for a number of health-related issues. I would "logically" be someone who would be unhappy by this. But I'm not. Why? Because I am sick and tired of politicians using me as a political football - especially Obama. The man has ZERO integrity and the national debt is a greater threat than the fiscal cliff. Yet he has zero desire to pay it down. Instead it's spend, spend, spend. Well - enough of it. If I die early, so be it. I love America, not Obama. I don't much care for Boehner either as he couldn't persuade a parched man to drink a nice cup of cool water. But at least he wants to curb growth. No mention by any of them about paying down the debt so that the service on the debt isn't such a head wind. Let's all go over the cliff together and then maybe we'll start thinking with the brains the gods gave us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting to see this briefing. In its current issue SA chronicles the problems facing medical research and the conflict of interests involving NIH folks. Thinking about it I'm convinced that organizations as big and powerful as NIH are more detrimental than beneficial for society. Believe me, if there is a glimmer of hope for society, it lies in science, but not one that relies in bureaucracies like NIH. So, here I go, let the fiscal cliff do its work to prune us from these monsters!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe TeaPublicans do not "believe" in Evolution, or the Greenhouse Effect on Global Warming, or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years; they oppose research on stem cells or more effective contraception. They do support that schools teach Religion and Creationist mythology. To make it short, they do not support Science. Moreover, they want to destroy it. As long as their Churches remain open and tax-exempted they want the laboratories closed as they drain the money from tax-payers. They created the "fiscal cliff" and want to perpetuate it. Then, why on Earth can anybody believe that they are going to listen to scientists and citizens that support Science that going over the "fiscal cliff" will hurt scientific endeavours? They will never vote to increase taxes on their bosses, the ones that paid for their failed political campaign. Science be damned!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou went to the Athens School of Economics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBOO-HOO HOO HOO! Obama doesn't support scientific research; Obama only supports expanding government payrolls with more and more folks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspending more and more OPM chasing smaller and smaller projects. Sooner or later (sooner) Obama will have spent 120+++% of GDP, caused the USA to default on its obligations, enslaved former American citizens, destroyed the former USA , turned over to China the former 'heartland' farmland of the USA, etc. etc. etc. rendering the once greatest natin ever known to a footnote to the Roman Empire in the history books. UNLESS spending is chopped chopped chopped to be less than revenues, the 'surplus' used to repay creditors world-wide. THEN resumption of scientific inquiry may resume on projects taking more than two years to pay for themselves.
Actually, there was little laboratory research in the Roman Empire. Everybody was busy with debauchery and they neglected to apply for Government-sponsored grants. In all earnest, whre do you think Big Pharma gets the development of new medications? From NIH-sponsored grants in the universities. You are the kind of tiresome fellow that God knows why you read scientific literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this