|
May 26, 2004
A: FROM MENTOR LESLIE WAITE
IN CA
Hi Robin!
This policy has been a problem where I work (the University
of
California San Francisco), because much of the "smothering"
of
research has been targeted at research projects designed to
understand the risk factors for transmission of HIV/AIDS and
the
effectiveness of prevention programs in people who are at
risk....
Why I believe these policies are dangerous is because it limits
scientific freedom, and scientific freedom is absolutely necessary
for successful research.
You may not realize it, but the US is the best place to do
biomedical
research in the world, bar none. People come from all over
the world
to train here, and in fact in some countries, if you want
to get a
job at a University running a research lab, you must first
get
training in a US lab to qualify. Even our "average"
institutions are
far better than the best institutions in many countries when
it comes
to quality of science. A big reason for this is that our government
has been willing to put a large amount of money towards biomedical
research, and at the same time has been willing to let scientists,
not politicians, decide how this money should be spent. While
this
system is not perfect, it does have the general effect of
promoting
excellent science and allowing great progress in understanding,
preventing, treating and curing diseases. It is no accident
that most
winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the past several
decades
have been from the US or have worked in US labs....
... it is important to understand how science money is awarded.
The NIH assesses requests for money based on scientific merit.
The
NIH is made up of several institutes, each of which have a
pot of
money to award. Even in the "easiest" institutes,
over 70% of the
requests for money are denied, because they are not considered
to be
of good enough scientific quality. In some institutes, as
many as 80%
of the requests for money are denied. IT IS NOT EASY TO GET
MONEY
FROM NIH!!
So when someone actually DOES succeed in getting money from
NIH for a
research project, it can be assumed that it is a well-planned,
necessary project that will help our understanding of disease
if
successful.
For the excellent researchers here at UCSF, it has been difficult
to
deal with some of the limitations that have been placed on
them AFTER
they have been approved for funding from NIH, or when they
submit
their requests to NIH. ... Some who have been awarded NIH
money have
been requested to re-justify why their research is important
scientifically, when they have already done this in their
grants.
I think there are a few problems that researchers targeted
by these
policies have with this extra scrutiny. The first is that
it ignores
the bigger picture of preventing disease and focuses instead
on who
is getting the disease. This implies that some people are
not worth
as much as others. In other words, these policies imply that
good
moral people who get a disease deserve to be saved more than
bad
immoral people who get a disease. The second problem is- who
gets to
decide what is good and what is bad? Today it is HIV, but
are we
going to stop researching lung cancer tomorrow because it
mainly
affects smokers, and everyone knows that smoking is dangerous
and
they shouldn't smoke? Are we going to stop studying heart
disease in
obese people because they should be better in control of their
eating
habits? Where does it stop, and who gets to decide?
We have a pretty good system right now. We decide who gets
money
based on who can do the best science and make the most progress
towards understanding disease. Using this standard, we have
built
ourselves the best research system in the world. Other countries
(especially those who use political and moral standards to
award
research) have not done as well. It is important that we keep
shifting political beliefs out of the scientific process,
or we will
lose our quality research programs here.
Feel free to ask follow up questions about how these policies
affect
researchers- I can ask colleagues here how they have been
affected
directly if you wish, because as I mentioned before, a number
of
people I work with have been directly affected by these policies.
********************
May 24, 2004
A: FROM MENTOR DEBORAH GRUBBE
IN DE
There are many times that scientists and engineers need to
insert
themselves into the political process. Opinions are like noses,
everybody has one.
The key thing is to understand where YOUR opinions are and
WHY. In my work
in advising the US Government, I have seen federal employees
embrace, use
and welcome the views and opinions of external experts. While
I am sure that
some folks have felt slighted from time to time, one has to
look at the
subject matter at hand, and its importance to the issues of
the day. You
can always complain in life that people are not listening
to you. The
challenge is to be diligent in being certain that you are
communicating
clearly.
*********************
A: FROM MENTOR JOAN LUSK IN
RI
...when scientific consensus is ignored the whole scientific
process is corrupted.
Consensus can be challenged with new evidence and new theories,
but
to ignore evidence for political purposes is not right. In
the long
run it will do harm - just as imposing Lysenkoism in the USSR
damaged
Soviet biology and agriculture.
...
********************
A: FROM MENTOR KRISTIN TAGHON
IN IL
Hi, Robin,
Many people feel that the regulations that the government
mandates for research
smothers research. An example of this is the regulations for
use of embryos in
research for curing diseases or genetic problems. Another
would be the FDA
regulations on drugs and sometimes the delay in approving
drugs for use in the
U.S.. Sometimes, even approval to continue research on a particular
drug is
denied.
... Also, if the pharmaceutical industry were not strictly
regulated, some people feel that the companies that make them
may take liberties to make lower quality drugs. Perhaps money
received from the government would be better used elsewhere
if the research has
not progressed on some drugs to show that the drug will work.
The problem is,
government agencies that review the research don't have enough
people to review
all the research going on in a timely manner.
I know that this has happened even in the cellular phone industry.
The
standards used by companies to provide wireless service has
to be approved by
the government. Because they are so far behind and do not
have enough people to
review the technologies, approval for the standards are delayed
and production
of the equipment that would use this new technology cannot
begin. And the sale
of the technology cannot even happen in the U.S. That is why
technology often
grows faster in Europe. The governments there embrace technology
and are not as
strict with the regulations. This is bad for U.S. companies
because they have
to sell their product in Europe, and Europe typically wants
to buy from their own
companies. So, the U.S. then has to make deals to create employment
in those
countries in order to sell products there. So, two problems
come from this:
Technology comes slower to the U.S. and jobs go overseas.
Some feel that less government regulation or to privatize
regulation is the
answer.
Thanks for your question, Robin!
|
