Newt Gingrich Told Me To Blog This

by emptypockets

Somtimes, I question my own intentions. Do I really think it's in Americans' interest to pay me to do basic biology research, or do I just like getting paid? Is the NIH anything more than welfare for academics? When such moments strike, I like to turn for advice to a liberal luminary, an advocate of the power of Big Government doing big jobs for the common good. Someone like -- Newt Gingrich?

NIH funding has been flat since 2004, undermining the gains earned through the doubling of the budget and slowing the pace of progress in biomedical research. The Bush administration's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget would cut $329 million from last year's allocation of $28.6 billion. Biomedical inflation significantly compounds the impact of this reduction. This is exactly the wrong course for the country. Investment in the NIH should be expanded, not cut.

[...]

The National Institutes of Health Reform Act, approved by Congress in 2006, contained the authorization of an increase of 8 percent for the agency in 2008. The House Appropriations Committee vote on June 7 calling for a 2.6 percent increase for NIH does not go far enough. The House, Senate and the Bush administration should follow the 8 percent increase authorization, and make a choice now to secure longer, healthier lives for Americans with this as the benchmark for future years.

Those paragraphs, emphases mine, are from an op-ed Gingrich co-authored in the June 24 San Francisco Chronicle. As I recently posted, the current Senate and House plans increase the NIH budget by only 3.5%, compared to an inflation rate in the life sciences of 3.7% (detailed numbers here). The current plans also shift funding obligations around within NIH in a way that leaves most Institutes with increases of less than 2.5%, a stunning real dollar cut relative to inflation. At this point, let me stop and ask, what upside-down, ass-backwards planet am I living on when Gingrich advocates government spending on medical research while the Democratic Congress wants to starve it out?

Gingrich lays out in detail why he's putting efforts into funding NIH, and how basic scientists can help, in an interview this quarter with the Society for Neuroscience (SfN). SfN has about 37,000 members, making it one of the largest scientific professional societies. SfN recently endorsed a white paper (PDF) on biomedical research issued by Gingrich's research advocacy group, the Center for Health Transformation.

The interview is here, and Gingrich lays out the salient points from the white paper and the op-ed. He does an excellent job doing what I've tried to do -- namely, to explain why NIH funding is critical for America's future. He lays it out in four points, essentially promoting American health, science, leadership, and industry.

First and most fundamentally, every day, past medical innovations help millions of Americans across the nation, in every community, in every state and every district. On that basis, policymakers should view funding NIH as an investment in our nation's future, rather than a fiscal burden.

Second, as I suggested above, we argue that the recent "start-stop" funding approach has hindered efficient research planning, slowed the rate of progress, and discouraged young scientists from entering or remaining in basic research.

Third, we present recent evidence that we think strongly supports the case that the Federal Government is still under-investing in biomedical research. The best economic analysis indicates that Americans value the resulting benefits of biomedical progress many times more than the amount the federal government invests to support this work.

Finally, we argue that that this investment makes sense on economic grounds as well. Investment in basic biomedical research also benefits America by stimulating the biotech industry, one of the most strategic components of the nation's economy.

Importantly, and as a sign to me that Gingrich really gets it, he nails the point I've been hammering on, that research funding needs to be a slow, steady, sustainable investment and that boom-and-bust cycles are wasteful and counterproductive. This is a really important point about the nature of science funding policy, that is rarely appreciated by non-scientists. It is a jolt to me to find a politician who can articulate it so clearly:

We doubled the NIH budget with the assumption that this would catch it back up to where it should have been all along. Recent budgets, however, are rapidly eroding all that the doubling accomplished. Not only do we risk soon finding ourselves back where we were a decade ago, but this feast-famine cycle is a terrible context for trying to plan and execute sensible long-term research projects.

So how can we get NIH funding back on track? Gingrich outlines three possibilities: a "great person" approach, where a single Congressperson (like John Porter in the 1990s) champions the cause; a "grassroots" approach, where scientists, scientific societies, biotech companies, and other interested parties speak up so loudly and unitedly that they can't be ignored; and a "budget reform" approach involving sweeping changes in the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, that I don't understand and that he doesn't detail.

Obviously, the grassroots approach is the most immediately relevant. Gingrich prescribes a set of actions for scientists and science advocates to move their agenda forward. It's remarkably simple.

I think the research community needs to speak out forcefully in the upcoming elections... Speaking out needn't mean using bullhorns and placards. In the coming election cycle, probably the most effective thing to do is simply to attend candidates' town hall meetings. Succinctly explain why you care about research funding. Ask them to explain their position. Press them for specifics. This can all be done in a very respectful and appropriate way.

Having hosted hundreds of such meeting while in office, I can assure you that if researchers consistently attend such meetings, it will make a lasting impression on policymakers and candidates. It is surprisingly effective. You don't need to travel beyond your congressional district to make an impression on representatives, but you probably will need to show up on a couple Saturday mornings at local political events. Another approach is for researchers to work through their employer or through a professional association to request a meeting with their representative in their district office. With good preparation and a clear message, this too can be very effective.

He doesn't actually mention blogging, but I figure if I can convince ten of you to show up and ask a question about NIH funding at town hall meetings in your district, I've amplified my voice 11-fold. Maybe it's worth organizing scientists and non-scientist science advocates, and keeping a list of zip codes and email addresses to try to get as many town halls attended as possible.

Here's where I'd like your help. First, I know there are a fair number of scientists and science advocates who read this site. (If you've made it this far, you're pretty much a science advocate by definition.) What would need to happen to get you to (a) attend town hall meetings with candidates in your city, and (b) if you get to ask a question, making it about biomedical research funding rather than the many other pressing issues on all of our agendas?

Second, I'd like to make more science advocates. If there's any way I can do that through blogging, great. What lines of conversation have you found to be effective for getting other people excited? What gets you excited about science, yourself? I've occasionally posted here about basic science (telomerase, microRNAs) but I'm not good at talking about the kind of clinically relevant work that I'm afraid most people respond to. Maybe the best thing is for me, as Gingrich says, to "succinctly explain why [I] care about research funding."

And speaking of that, finally, does anyone have any advice for how I can get back to Planet Normal, where Democrats stand up for long-term visionary government enterprise, and Gingrich doesn't?

Comments

[quake]

"And speaking of that, finally, does anyone have any advice for how I can get back to Planet Normal, where Democrats stand up for long-term visionary government enterprise, and Gingrich doesn't?"

In the Wizard of Oz Dorothy got back to Kansas by waking up. I wish it were that simple here....

[drational]

"And speaking of that, finally, does anyone have any advice for how I can get back to Planet Normal, where Democrats stand up for long-term visionary government enterprise, and Gingrich doesn't?"

Newt has always been a major advocate for science funding, and played an instrumental role in the NIH Doubling effort at the end of the 1990s. This is one issue that seems amenable to bipartisanship. I think one problem you nail is the need for grassroots efforts by scientists to take the case for research to the public.

I am a Neuroscience researcher and Neurologist, so I can help with some of the human patient translational links....

[Boo Radley]

emptypockets, I always find your posts interesting, informative, and helpful. I wish I knew anything about government funding for science.

[semiot]

I think one promising line of argument is to mention "research translation" - the processes required to move scientific findings and techniques into useful practice. We have made enourmous investments in basic research infrastructure and training. Unfortunately it typically takes 10 to 20 years for ideas in basic research to be widely applied in clinical and other areas of practice. The NIH has begun to take this issue seriously - ironically, to some extend because of the pressure of the tight budgets and ideological skinflintism of the Bush years.

There is much that practitioners in many fields - especially biomedical fields - can and should learn from scientists about introducing evidence based practice and recognized best practice techniques, based in scientific investigation of what works and what doesn't. The reverse is also true. Scientists have much to learn from practitioners about putting ideas to work in the often messy conditions of real world practice.

If a buck can be made off research findings - e.g., in pharmaceuticals or medical devices - the road is fairly well paved. But in areas such as disease prevention and service delivery, where the ultimate goal is to reduce demand for expensive treatments, only government intervention can address the obvious market failure.

We need more and steadier funding in research. We also need to fund mechanisms to make better use of the fruits of research. This line of argument, it seems to me, appeals both to the head and to the heart of the politics of science.

[4jkb4ia]

Done! When I go to give Claire McCaskill an earful about FISA I will tell her that I am interested in bioinformatics and NIH funding is very important.

[JohnJ]

I am a registered repug (wait, wait, don't hurt me; I'm not done yet,). The 2 biggest reasons I haven't voted for a single repug in over 15 years: 1)Newt 2)Kenneth Star and his enablers including #1 above,(actually the whole philosophy that those two exposed, not just the individuals).

The reasons for not voting for repugs are, of course, now a thousand fold more than back then and I basically keep my obsolete party affiliation to screw with the rover's numbers (i.e. he counts on me to support the repugs). Here in the 3rd world (Florida) I also do not get harassed at the polls for my ID when they see my repug affiliation (true story, they stopped when I pointed that out).

The frustrating part is that Newt is a brilliant man and I remember him being on the right side of a surprising number of issues (NIH being one of them). He's just irreversibly misguided when it comes to politics as one of the architects of the win-at-all-costs repug philosophy. He therefore needs to be kept in Hannibal Lecter style restraints while listening to his advice. Never forget that we are where we are (think shithole) at least partly because of him.

[Neil]

I hate it when Newt is right too because he is such an *sshole but I remind myself that good ideas can come from many places.

[emptypockets]

semiot, what you're talking about is at the heart of the problem. It is easy to talk to the legislators and to the public about translational research because you can give them a patient's face and story. There's a lot of empathy there.

But that kind of research is, in my opinion, the final result and not the driving force (in a previous post I used the analogy of the waves on a riverbank -- it's what gets your feet wet, but the central river current is basic science). And I don't have a lot to say about clinically-directed/translational research. For one thing, it's not what I do (and I don't personally find it that interesting), and secondly, a lot of it can be effectively done by the private sector (although there are exceptions, as you point out, and some groups are trying to set up publicly-funded biotech-style research collaboratives).

Maybe what I ought to do is focus on how you can get from a basic discovery to a therapy. Bruce Alberts, former President of the National Academy of Sciences and currently President of a scientific professional society, the American Society for Cell Biology, recently put out a call for examples of basic research leading to potential therapies, in an article called "Why Basic Research in Cell Biology is Still Critical for Human Health" (PDF) so maybe they are thinking of organizing their advocacy along those same lines.

[Mimikatz]

Actually, the Dems did have a program for expanding research and funding science education. Pelosi announced it to much fanfare before the 2006 election. I suppose it has gotten caught up in all the other funding issues.

The way to get fundiong is to tie it to defense. Are you old enough to remember the National Defense Education Act that did so much for science education in the '50s and '60s? Are you aware the interstates were started under Eisenhower as a dxefense measure (easier to move troops)? Even food safety is touted today as a defense issue.

Sorry, but that's the major wayu to do it. The other way is to stress competitiveness. We can't be no 1 in science and technology unless we pay for it.

California also passed the stem cell bond issue partly on the idea that it would creat good tech jobs in the biotech sector for people with only jr college or undergrad education.

In short, Gingrich has pretty well covered the arguments.

[sponson]

He's right, basically. This needs funding if the US is going to keep up with Europe, etc., in research. I work in this type of research and the "roller-coaster" nature since 2001 is hurting people badly and warping their scientific plans. Why would he be "right?" He's smart enough to see that this will make him look good, and most importantly, make him look smart, which has always been his image, the "boy genius." Well, it's time for the Democrats to outdo him, a proper and fair challenge has been issued by Gingrich. What a disgrace if they don't meet it.

[MarkH]

I'm torn on this issue.

1) We need to NOT over-extend if we're going to be in power soon and debating a major health care system reform and trying to deal with huge federal debts lefty by Georgie Boy.

2) We obviously need to spend mega-dollars on all science research, whether in the medical field or otherwise.

So, I'd say spending should be decided in a project-by-project basis. Congess needs to guesstimate the value of each and increase spending where they think it'll produce bigger returns for Americans.

Nasty thing having to guess.

[emptypockets]

MarkH, that's reasonable. Just as further food for thought, here are some of the numbers:

Current NIH budget: $28.6 billion
Gingrich's recommended increase of 8% = +$2.3 billion
Science advocates' recommended increase of 6.7% = +$1.9 billion
Minimum to keep pace with inflation, at 3.7% = +$1.1 billion

Estimated cost of John Edwards's health care plan: $90 to $120 billion

Pie chart overview of government spending (2005 data) from IRS is here:

Social security/medicare: 37%
Defense, veterans affairs: 24%
Medicaid, unemployment, social services: 20%
Education and research: 10%
Interest on the debt: 7%

The NSF and NIH budgets together are about 1% of the total (they are accounted for under Education and Research).

Another way to look at it is that the gap between the Congressional NIH increase and either of the recommended increases is about $1 billion, equivalent to about 1% of a health care plan or about half a week in Iraq.

[orionATL]

gingrich is moving -

on the republican nomination.

he sees what idiots he has as opponents.

cf his persistent criticism of the iraq invasion and occupation.

this guy is saying what democratic candidates should be saying

and would be saying, if they weren't paying consultants lots of money to tell them "don't say that".

are we headed for another presidential election in which the democratic candidate tries to creep and slink into the white house a la gore and kerry?

looks like it.

[Neil]

Has gingrich reversed himself on the GWOT? In March he was declaring WW3 and now he says Iraq was a huge mistake. Does he really think he can get a nomination changing tacks?

[emptypockets]

Neil, I don't know. He has a statement at the top of his website, re-emphasizing the "phony global war on terror" and laying the blame at the feet of Congressional Republicans and the White House.

He talked at the National Press Club the other day and I saw a part of it on CSPAN. His focus was on how dirty and shallow press coverage of campaigns, and the campaigns themselves, have begun. He took as one example Obama's recent response on Pakistan, and came to Obama's defense saying that it is absurd to try to outline foreign policy at that level in 30 seconds and that if we demanded real debates that wouldn't happen (he held up the Lincoln-Douglas debates as a model, and endorsed a plan to have lengthy single-issue debates televised on a major network on each of the 9 Sundays between Labor Day and Election Day). He also criticized the coverage, saying it could have gone into a substantive discussion of negotiations with Pakistan but instead went immediately into Obama horserace mode.

More relevant to your question, he also (implicitly) came to Kerry's defense saying that it's just absurd to not let a candidate change positions, and to label them a flip-flopper if they learn new things or if their view of a situation changes over the course of a campaign. He gave some examples of major changes in viewpoint that have happened over the course of campaigning, and just assailed the idea that a candidate should be asked in Jan 2007 what they'll do first in Jan 2009, when it will be a different world.

On the one hand, maybe that was partly providing protection for his own flip-flop. On the other hand, I basically agreed with everything he had to say.