Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘federal funding

Science Policy Around the Web – June 20, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, PhD

Source: Flickr, via Creative Commons (CC BY 2.0)

Research Funding

America is Still First in Science, but China Rose Fast as Funding Stalled in U. S. and Other Countries

American scientific groups continue to publish more biomedical research discoveries than groups from any other country, and the United States still leads the world in research and development expenditures. However, American dominance is slowly diminishing as China’s increase in funding on science over the last twenty years are starting to pay off. Chinese biomedical research now ranks fourth in the world for total number of discoveries published in six top-tier journals. This is with China spending three-fourths of the amount of money that the U.S. spent on research and development in 2015. In addition, new discoveries and advances in science are becoming more of a collaborative effort, which include researchers from around the world.

These findings come from research published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation by a group of University of Michigan researchers. The analysis comes at an important time for Congress to think about whether the annual uncertainty of the National Institutes of Health’s(NIH) budget and proposed cuts are in the nation’s best interest over the long-term. Bishr Omary, the senior author of the article commented, “If we continue on the path we’re on, it will be harder to maintain our lead and, even more importantly, we could be disenchanting the next generation of bright and passionate biomedical scientists who see a limited future in pursuing a scientist or physician-investigator career.”

The research was based on data up to 2015. During the current fiscal year of 2017, funding for NIH was proposed to be increased by 2 billion dollars, which is the second year in a row where funding was increased after 12 years of flat budgets. With this increase in funding, Omary hopes that, “our current and future investment in NIH and other federal research support agencies will rise above any branch of government to help our next generation reach their potential and dreams.” (University of Michigan, ScienceDaily)

Opioid Crisis

The Role of Science in Addressing the Opioid Crisis

Opioid addiction is an ongoing public health crisis. Millions of individuals all over the United States suffer from opioid use disorder with millions more suffering from chronic pain. Due to the urgency and scale of this crisis, innovative scientific solutions need to be developed. As part of a government-wide effort to address this crisis, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is supplementing current research efforts with a public-private collaborative research initiative on pain and opioid abuse.

The Director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins met with research and development leaders from biopharmaceutical companies in April 2017 to discuss new ways in which  government and industry can work together to address the opioid crisis. Dr. Collins stated how some advances such as improved formulations, opioids with abuse-deterrent properties, longer-acting overdose-reversal drugs, and repurposing of treatments approved for other conditions may be quick. Other advances such as mu-opioid receptor-based agonists, opioid vaccines, and novel overdose-reversal medications may be slower to develop. Overall, the goal for this partnership is to reduce the time typically required to develop new, safe, and effective therapeutics to half the average time. (Nora D. Volkow and Francis S. Collins, New England Journal of Medicine)

Climate Change

France is Offering US Scientists 4-year Grants to Move to the Country and do Research

Following President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, France created an initiative that will allow researchers, teachers, and students to apply for a fully financed four-year grant to combat climate change. The website for the initiativesays,

“You will be able to stay in France at least for the duration of the grant, and longer if you are granted a permanent position. There is no restriction on your husband / wife working in France. If you have children, note that French public schools are free, and the tuition fees of universities and ‘grandes écoles’ are very low compared to the American system.”

Since Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election in May, he has addressed American scientists who feel alienated by the Trump administration. Macron has promised strong funding for climate initiatives. However, some U.S. scientists like David Blockstein of the National Council for Science and the Environment see Macron’s invitation as “both a publicity stunt and a real opportunity.” Although it is not very likely that many U.S. researchers will take up the offer, it does provide a “sharp contrast to an increasingly hostile U.S. political environment for science.” (Chris Weller, Business Insider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – December 13, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Allison Dennis, BS

Source: pixabay

Whistleblowers in Science

Keep your reviewers close and your online, anonymous, post-publication reviewers closer

A recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that anonymous online scientific reviews are a protected form of speech. Fazlul Sarkar, a former researcher at Wayne State University, had sued the site PubPeer in 2014 in an attempt to reveal the identity of several anonymous online reviewers to mixed success. Sarkar claimed that the defamatory and public nature of several online reviews posted anonymously to PubPeer had cost him a forthcoming tenure position at the University of Mississippi, one that came with a $350,000 a year salary. These reviews brought into question the validity of several images found in his published works.

While the initial ruling in March of 2015 largely sided with PubPeer to protect the anonymity of their online posters, a follow-up just two weeks later compelled PubPeer to reveal the IP address of a user who had gone as far as to repost quotes from an email response from the Senior Executive Assistant to the President of Wayne State University confirming their knowledge of the online allegations.

PubPeer filed an appeal of the decision by the end March, which garnished the collective support of science and internet moguls, Bruce Alberts, and Harold Varmus, Google, and Twittter in addition to the ACLU who filed amicus briefs in support of online anonymity. The summer brought more trouble for Sarkar as thirteen of his papers were retracted.

On December 9, 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals found upon further review that Sarkar was “not entitled to unmask the identities of any speakers on pubpeer.com” citing “anonymity protections afforded by the First Ammendment.” Although this ruling does not dismiss Fazlul Sarkar’s case against John and Jane Doe, the protection of anonymity makes the suit moot. (Adam Marcus and Ivan Oranksy, STAT)

Federal Funding

Bipartisan cure found for stalled 21st Century Cures Initiative

In an end of the year push, the House and Senate passed the 21st Century Cures Initiative, a bill aimed at bringing legislation and regulation up to speed with biomedical research. At the end of November, a draft of the bill emerged from negotiations that were largely palatable to both Republican and Democrats across the House and Senate. A previous draft of the bill had successfully passed the House in July. However agreement over the source of funding could not be reached, arresting any further progress of the bill. The passing months brought Fred Upton, the Republican Representative who had originally spearheaded the bill close to the term limit afforded, as the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The results of the recent elections seemed to be enough to incentivize compromise for Democrats in the final months of the Obama administration. Both parties returned to negotiations settling on a combination of funds derived from the selling of petroleum reserves and the Affordable Care Act.

In the end, the bill won 392-26 in the House and 94-5 in the Senate. Highlights of the bill under the title of Development include the accepted substitution of “data summaries” for full clinical trials when a new indication is to be added for a previously approved drug and expansion of off label-uses. The FDA has been tasked with evaluating evidence from the real world in an effort to speed-up and improve patient access. Highlights under the title of Discovery include a $4.8 billion boost to the NIH budget and $1.8 billion power pack for Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshoot. A complete play-by-play of the winners and losers of the final version of the bill can be found in Sheila Kaplan’s article on STATnews. (Sheila Kaplan, STAT)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 13, 2016 at 10:38 am

Science Policy Around the Web – November 22, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Rachel Smallwood, PhD

Photo source: pixabay

Federal Research Funding

US R&D Spending at All-Time High, Federal Share Reaches Record Low

Recently released data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) showed trending increases in scientific research funding in the US across the past several years. Estimates of the total funding for 2015 put the value at an all-time high for research and development (R&D) funding for any country in a single year. In 2009, President Obama stated a goal to devote 3% of the USA’s gross domestic product (GDP) to research, and we have been making slow progress to that point; in 2015, 2.78% of the GDP went to research. Businesses accounted for the largest portion of overall scientific funding, contributing 69% of the funds. The second largest contributor was the federal government; however, it had the lowest percentage share of the total since the NSF started tracking funding in 1953, and the actual dollar amount contributed has been declining since 2011. Therefore, although the overall percentage of GDP going to research is increasing, that increase is driven by businesses, whereas the GDP percentage contributed by the federal government has dropped to almost 0.6%.

When taking a closer look at types of research, the federal government is the largest funding source for basic science research, covering 45% of the total. However, businesses make up the majority of the funding for applied research (52% in 2014) and experimental development (82% in 2014). This disproportionality in funding types combined with the decreases in federal research spending are concerning for the basic science field. There is more competition for less money, and this concern is compounded by uncertainty and questions about President-Elect Trump’s position on and plans for scientific funding. Aside from a couple of issues, primarily concerning climate change and the environment, he has said very little about science and research. Many scientists, institutions, and concerned citizens will be watching closely to see how science policy develops under Trump’s administration and its effects on federal spending and beyond. (Mike Henry, American Institute of Physics)

Biomedical Research

‘Minibrains’ Could Help Drug Discovery for Zika and for Alzheimer’s

A group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) is working on a promising tool for evaluating disease and drug effects in humans without actually using humans for the tests. ‘Minibrains’ are clusters of human cells that originated as skin cells, reprogrammed to an earlier stage of development, and then forced to differentiate into human neural cells. They mimic the human brain as far as cell types and connections, but will never be anywhere near as large as a human brain and can never learn or become conscious.

A presentation earlier this year at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference showcased the potential utility for minibrains. A large majority of drugs that are tested in animals fail when introduced in humans. Minibrains provide a way to test these drugs in human tissue at a much earlier stage – saving time, money, and animal testing – without risking harm to humans. Minibrains to test for biocompatibility can be made from skin cells of healthy humans, but skin cells from people with diseases or genetic traits can also be used to study disease effects.

A presentation at the Society for Neuroscience conference this month demonstrated one such disease – Zika. The minibrains’ growth is similar to fetal brain growth during early pregnancy. Using the minibrains, Dr. Hongjun Song’s team at JHU was able to see how the Zika virus affected the cells; the affected minibrains were much smaller than normal, a result that appears analogous to the microcephaly observed in infants whose mothers were infected with Zika during the first trimester.

Other presentations at the meeting showcased work from several research groups that are already using minibrains to study diseases and disorders including brain cancer, Down syndrome, and Rett syndrome, and plans are underway to utilize it in autism, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. Though there might be a bit of an acceptance curve with the general public, minibrains potentially offer an avenue of testing that is a better representation of actual human cell behavior and response, is safer and more affordable, and reduces the need for animal testing. (Jon Hamilton, NPR)

Health Policy

A Twist on ‘Involuntary Commitment’: Some Heroin Users Request It

The opioid addiction epidemic has become a significant healthcare crisis in the United States. Just last week the US Surgeon General announced plans to target addiction and substance abuse. He also stated the desire for a change in perception of addiction – it is a medical condition rather than a moral or character flaw. Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control published guidelines that address opioid prescribing practices for chronic pain, strongly urging physicians to exhaust non-pharmacologic options before utilizing opioids. In response to the rising concern over prescription opioid abuse, steps have been taken to reduce prescriptions and access. This has resulted in many turning to heroin – which is usually a cheaper alternative anyway – to get their opioid fix.

One of the first steps in treatment and recovery for addiction and dependence is detoxing. However, opioids are highly addictive and many people struggle with the temptation to relapse. Additionally, many of the programs designed to help with the initial detox have long wait lists, are expensive, and may not be covered by insurance, further deterring those with addiction and dependence from getting the help they need. These factors have caused many to start turning to their states, asking to be voluntarily committed to a program on the basis that they are a danger to themselves or others because of their substance abuse. This is currently an option in 38 states. These programs can be held in either privately-run institutions or in state prisons. However, this practice is controversial because if the person’s insurance does not cover their stay, it falls to tax payers to foot the bill. While this is unpopular with some, advocates say the civil commitment laws are important options while there may be no other immediate ways for an individual to get help. (Karen Brown, NPR)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 22, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – April 12, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Amy Kullas, Ph.D.

A representation of the surface of the Zika virus is shown. A team led by Purdue University researchers is the first to determine the structure of the Zika virus, which reveals insights critical to the development of effective antiviral treatments and vaccines. (Purdue University image/courtesy of Kuhn and Rossmann research groups)

Funding the ongoing Zika pandemic

Shifting funds for Zika is a good start, but more money is still needed

Last week, the White House made the decision to redirect $589 million in unspent federal funds, previously allocated for an Ebola response, to cover costs associated with fighting and researching Zika. The White House is still advocating for additional funding for both the ongoing Zika pandemic and to replenish the money that was moved away from Ebola. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), informed ScienceInsider that ~$50 million of the reallocated funds will go to NIAID to fund Zika research. None of the redirected funds will come out of the money that NIAID had previously received for research on Ebola, as the vast majority of those funds have already been spent. Further, Fauci warns “That’s not enough to last me very long. We can start the work, but we can’t finish what we need to do.”

Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed in a press conference on April 12, “Everything we know about this virus seems to be scarier than we initially thought.”

In February, the Obama administration had requested almost $2 billion to help thwart the Zika virus and its transmission. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled Congress failed to act on this emergency funding request. White house officials are nevertheless still trying to persuade Congress to pass the emergency Zika funding. Fauci bleakly predicts, “If we don’t get all of the Zika money, that is when things start getting hurt,” alluding to the possibility of having to further shift critical NIAID funds away from ongoing malaria, influenza, and tuberculosis research. (Puneet Kollipara, ScienceInsider)

Mental Health

Solutions to mental health impairments require global collaboration

Globally, almost 1/3 of people will suffer from a mood, anxiety, or substance-use issue during their lifetime. In fact, these disorders are one of the leading causes of disability. The resources to assist people facing these problems are not only inadequate in the United States, but around the world as well. There are some countries in Africa, where people are extremely underserved leaving them particularly vulnerable because these countries have the fewest resources for mental-health care as they only one psychiatrist for the entire country. In fact, there are only 9 mental health providers per 100,000 people worldwide.

Importantly, support for mental health does not lack political backing. Both the World Health Organization and the World Bank will coorperate to broaden global efforts in mental health. This past September, mental health was included in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Since 2011, new investments (estimated at ~$80 million US) have been made by the three largest funders of mental-health research in low- and middle-income countries: the US National Institute of Mental Health, Grand Challenges Canada, and the UK Department for International Development. Recently, research has focused on efficacy, effectiveness and implementation in the low- and middle-income countries. These local research teams often work or consult with colleagues in rich countries. Researchers, clinicians, and caregivers must unite to all work together because “when it comes to mental health, all countries are developing.” (Pamela Y. Collins & Shekhar Saxena, Nature Comment)

Vaccine shortage and Global Health

Dangerous shortage of yellow fever vaccine

Four. There are only four facilities worldwide that produce yellow fever vaccines: the Pasteur Institute, two government facilities in Russia and Brazil, and a French vaccine company Sanofi Pasteur. Unfortunately, their combined efforts have been failing the world’s demands and the ongoing outbreak in Angola only further emphasizes the escalating shortage. Jack Woodall, formerly of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, warns “another major outbreak…could be impossible to control.” He admits that this potential is something that he’s deeply concerned about.

Yellow fever is an acute viral hemorrhagic disease transmitted by infected mosquitoes. The ‘yellow’ in the name refers to the jaundice that affects some patients. Without treatment, up to half of severely affected people will die. Annually, there are an estimated 60,000-80,000 deaths attributed to yellow fever globally. There is no specific treatment for yellow fever, leaving vaccination the most important preventative measure.

When a yellow fever outbreak occurs in an urban setting, like the one in Angola, it is often relentless as the mosquitoes can easily transmit the virus person to person. William Perea, of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Control of Epidemic Diseases department, stated that Angola has confirmed 490 cases and almost 200 deaths, the actual numbers could be 10 fold higher. Since February, a large vaccine initiative has been underway, reaching 6 million of Luanda’s estimated 7.5 million residents. Currently, yellow fever has stretched into 6 of the 18 provinces in the country. The global emergency yellow fever vaccine stockpile has been left empty, unlikely to be replenished anytime soon. (Kai Kupferschmidt, ScienceInsider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 12, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – February 12, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Rebecca A. Meseroll, Ph.D.

Zika research funding

Obama requests $1.8 billion in emergency funds to fight Zika

President Obama issued a statement of intent to request $1.8 billion from Congress to develop resources to combat the spread of Zika virus both internationally and domestically.  Zika, which is transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, has spread rapidly around Central and South America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands in the past year, and is an emerging public health threat, especially due to its possible link with congenital microcephaly, a severe birth defect, in children born to women infected with the virus during their pregnancy.  The funds requested by the president would be used for a variety of purposes in an aggressive effort to contain the spread of the virus, including mosquito control, research on the virus and a potential vaccine against it, public education campaigns, and support personnel and equipment for areas where the outbreak is ongoing.  Congress will have to decide whether to grant the funds, which would be part of the 2017 budget, later this year.  While there is much to be done to minimize the impact of Zika, health officials indicate there is no cause for alarm about large-scale spread of the virus in the United States at present, but women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant are advised to use caution when planning travel to countries affected by Zika. (Jon Cohen, ScienceInsider and Mark Landler, The New York Times)

Climate change policy

Supreme Court stays climate change regulations

The Clean Power Plan, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at President Obama’s behest last year, sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32% compared to 2005 levels.  The EPA’s rules would require states to create their own plans, due to the agency by September of this year, detailing how they would reduce emissions beginning in 2022.  This week, however, the US Supreme Court granted a request put forth by many states and power companies to put the regulations on hold on the grounds that they are outside of the purview of the EPA.  Thus the regulations are set up to endure a lengthy legal battle, as the case will not come up in appeals court until June, after which it will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, who would not hear the case until 2017.  Although the Supreme Court did not give its reasons for granting the stay, experts suggest that the Court may be telegraphing its wariness about the legality of the regulations by making this decision before the case has gone through a lower court.  The Obama administration remains confident and environmentalists hopeful that the regulations will hold up in court, however it may be necessary in the future for Congress to pass climate change legislation before progress can actually be made. (Jeff Tollefson, Nature and Robert Barnes and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post)

HIV and organ transplantation

First HIV-positive organ transplants to occur in the United States

Years of advocacy led to the passage of the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act in 2013, which lifted a ban on research into organ donations between HIV-positive individuals, and now the life-saving promise of the law is about to come to fruition. Doctors at Johns Hopkins received permission from the United Network for Organ Sharing to perform the first kidney and liver transplants between HIV-positive donors and recipients in the US, and they are prepared to conduct the procedures as soon as the first patients are ready. Johns Hopkins will be the first in the world to perform liver transplants between an HIV-positive donors and HIV-positive recipients, however doctors in South Africa have had success with kidney transplants of this kind since 2008.  It has been estimated that organs from more than 500 potential HIV-positive deceased donors have gone unused each year because of previous prohibitions, thus this new source of HIV-positive donor organs for HIV-positive recipients is expected to improve wait-times for all patients hoping for an organ to become available.  The current HIV-positive transplants will utilize only organs from deceased donors, as more research must be done to determine the outcomes of kidney donation for HIV-positive patients. (Daniel Victor, The New York Times and Ariana Eunjung Cha, The Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 12, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – December 22, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Allison S. Burrell, MS, MPhil

Photo credit: via pixabay.com

Nuclear Policy and Science Diplomacy

When Scientists Do What Diplomats Can’t

Scientists are playing a role in ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and the United States, as well as five other PN+1 countries. An agreement was signed in July 2015, and as of September, new bids by the US Senate have not been able to hinder the deal from moving forward. As this deal is implemented, economic sanctions against Iran currently in place will be slowly lifted in exchange for increased controls on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. Science diplomats partner with political diplomats to ensure a proper understanding of the scientific details underlying the economic negotiations underway. This type of partnership is essential, and science diplomacy has been integral in international politics related to atomic weapons since the Manhattan Project back in 1945.

Scientists travel the world communicating and sharing their science through topic-specific conferences. This creates an international community of scientists, where borders are blurred and science is the common language. US secretary of Energy’s Ernest Moniz, and Iran’s head of the Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, both went to MIT, although at different times. But their common ground in physics and nuclear engineering allowed for a more personal relationship during these heated economic negotiations. It is proposed that the language of science is what brought the Iranian atomic negotiations back on track, accomplishing what political negotiations alone could not. Those who oppose the Iranian deal fundamentally disagree with the politics, yet still praise scientists’ role in negotiations. Scientists alone can’t be expected to understand the intricacies of political negotiations. Science diplomacy is slowly becoming a more popular term. The international editor for Science magazine, Richard Stone, believes that scientists “can come together and bond over a common cause…no matter where they are [from]”, and this is a strength that can be harnessed in the international diplomatic forum. (Audra Wolfe, The Atlantic)

Biosafety, Biosecurity and Risk

A more systematic approach to biological risk

In the past few years there have been worrying events that lay out the question of the status of biosafety and biosecurity in the U.S. Just last year, vials labeled variola, aka smallpox, were found in a freezer at the National Institutes of Health, and later determined to be viable. These pathogens, such as anthrax, smallpox and avian flu, have strict handling and storage protocols, which were not properly followed. In response to these events, as recently as October 2015, the White House laid plans, through a memorandum, to improve U.S. biosecurity and biosafety. Managing biological risk is a top priority, yet not much has changed since the well-known 1975 Asilomar meeting, which discussed the potential guidelines for using recombinant DNA.

Current meetings to address new biotechnology issues are still coming up short. Emerging biosafety and security issues cannot be treated solely as technical issues, but must also be represented from a governance standpoint. The National Institutes of Health, being the largest scientific funding agency in biological research, is currently evaluating a risk-benefit analysis of gain-of-function research, just as the National Academies of Science are evaluating gene editing and gene drives. Without outside governance, the end results run the risk of being biased towards success at any cost. Since the people making the decisions are specialists, they are also often involved in conducting the research, creating a conflict of interest. There is something to the thought, that if you are too close to a problem/project, you can’t see mistakes or alternatives.

There are committees or boards, such as the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), or the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI), that help with overseeing guideline creation for new biotechnologies. But these committees lack authority to impose rules that highlight biosecurity and risk. Mechanisms that are effective at regulation lie mostly in blocking or rescinding public funding, or inflicting fines. Transparency, through public reporting, is lacking, and this hinders investigations looking into improving risk strategies.

The advancement of scientific discovery is inevitable, and in order to protect our future, political and scientific realms must meet in a new arena, thus fostering a side-by-side collaboration of political and technical expertise. Science diplomacy, even on a national level, is key to moving forward with biosafety and biosecurity regulations. A new oversight position, as well as a coordinating committee, should be created in the U.S. government; that which focuses on anticipating and managing biotechnological risks, and works closely, through accountability and transparency, with the NIH, other federal agencies, and organizations intimately involved in emerging biotechnologies. (Megan J. Palmer, Francis Fukuyama and David A. Relman, Science Magazine)

Federal Funding for Science

Congress ready to give NIH its biggest increase in 12 years

The National Institutes of Health, a world leader in biomedical research and funding, has experienced budget cuts across the board over the past decade, in line with other federal institutions. Although biomedical research is arguably one of the most important science endeavors to invest in the security of our future health, a budget increase has not been seen in over 12 years. A new federal spending bill is up for vote in Congress, and was introduced on December 16, 2015. If it passes the house, and the Senate, the NIH will receive a $2 billion funding increase. But a bipartisan compromise will be necessary to get this all the way to Obama’s desk to be signed into law.

Some of the hottest research topics receiving new funding with this bill are as follows: $200 million is allocated for a new presidential Precision Medicine Initiative, $350 million for Alzheimer’s research, $85 million for the BRAIN Initiative, $303 million in the effort to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and $91 million towards opioid abuse programs.

NIH released a strategic plan of growth for the agency over a four-year period. How the new funding will be used towards this end is yet to be determined, since it was released before knowledge of the potential funding increase. Amazingly, even with the funding growth, adjusted for inflation, the NIH’s purchasing power is not comparable to its peak in 2003. Republican representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma wants a new goal for the future; to not just increase the budget this year, but in years to come as well.

Policy changes associated with the new spending bill include a hold on the Obamacare medical device tax for two years. The current restrictions preventing the CDC from researching gun violence, in effect for about 20 years, will not be lifted. The new legislation will limit e-cigarettes pre-market reviews. And new policy on genetically engineered salmon dictates that it will not be sold until new labeling guidelines are in place. (David Nather and Dylan Scott, Stat News)

Update: This spending bill passed both the house and the senate, and was signed into law by President Obama.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 22, 2015 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – July 21, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Amanda Whiting, Ph.D.

photo credit: timtom.ch via photopin cc

Funding policy

Congress pushes NIH to spur breakthroughs through prizes

A provision in the new 21st Century Cures bill, which passed through Congress last week, would create a new program from which to launch biomedical prize competitions at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Prize competitions have been used by other federal agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to offer challenges in robotics and engineering tasks as way to speed up innovation and research. Though offering prizes for success can garner applications from sources outside of the traditional academic mainstream, “there only a few places where prizes really work in health,” said Christopher Frangione, vice president of prize development at XPRIZE, a private organization dedicated to facilitating global changes and innovation through competition. For example, long term studies involving basic, fundamental research might be poor candidates for a “grand challenge” competition, whereas benefits might be seen in areas that require an engineering feat, or would be helped by encouraging interdisciplinary research. Other opponents of the bill fear that prizes would reduce grant funding through other, more traditional means, and worry that having politically appointed advisers “threatens to undermine the independent peer-review process that is the bedrock of NIH funding,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D–NJ). Still, any new avenue to pursue ground-breaking medical research is worthy of exploration! It will be interesting to see if NIH ends up following up with the potential Innovation Prizes Program. (Kelly Servick, ScienceInsider)

Scientific rigor and reproducibility

Collaborate and listen to reproduce research

A new report from the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) suggests that suggests that researchers in particularly hard to reproduce fields like cell biology, could better their results in replicating published data if they reached out to the original authors for assistance or method clarification. ASCB surveyed its membership and found that 60% of those who reported problems with reproducibility said that they were able to fix the issue by checking with the lab that conducted the experiment in question to resolve issues about the methods. While this may seem like an obvious solution, some researchers may be reluctant due to competition within the field or other reasons. One solution to this issue would be to have each field adopt their own consistent standards of proof, said Mark Winey, one of the report’s authors and a molecular biologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder and chair of the ASCB’s Data Reproducibility Task Force. In addition, a majority of respondents to the survey said that the quest to publish in high-profile journals hampered reproducibility, an opinion shared by Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist and immunologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. “Science is messy, and high-impact journals often demand clean stories with a clear punchline,” he says. “That creates perverse incentives for cherry-picking data.” (Chris Woolston, Nature | Research Highlights: Social Selection)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 21, 2015 at 9:00 am