The War on Drug Prices

Most Americans ask the question, is the price I pay for prescription medications FAIR? In other words, what is the true cost of developing, making and selling a medicine, AND how much profit seems reasonable? This is what we tackled last week during our Community Conversation with experts from the U of Washington’s International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

KEY FACTS THAT INFORMED OUR DISCUSSION
Tufts estimates that it costs $2.6 billion to develop an FDA approved drug, a number that increases 9% per year.  People in the US pay more for drugs than people in other countries for a few reasons: 1) we use more medications because we have better access to new ones, 2) we have a higher burden of chronic disease like diabetes and obesity, and 3)  in the US, the government protects drug manufacturing monopolies and limits price negotiations while other countries have more price regulation.

Another reason people in the US (and in Canada and Europe) pay more for medications is simply because, on the whole, we can afford to. Picture a world map, and picture all the people who live on Earth.  At 326 million, the US population is 4.4% of the world’s 7.5 billion people, but the US accounts for 50% of all medication sales in the world. Mind blown.

We are looking for VALUE in our medications.  We want medications that are novel and offer leaps of improved quality of life.  We are willing to pay more for medications that achieve this high bar, but there is a point for every person where price will exceed our ability to purchase a medication.

Finally, we learned about the trade-off between innovation and access.  Monopoly protection funds innovation. In turn, industry creates more new drugs in the long run that cost more money in the short run and poorer access. “But if new medicines aren’t invented, then no one can access them in the long term.” (ISPOR)  How can the market incentivize innovation if not through the almighty dollar?

DISCUSSION THEMES
Many in the room were for the first time faced with the reality that the US foots HALF the bill of medications in the world.  I don’t think anyone, besides the facilitators, was prepared for this data.  As the discussion dug deeper, we realized that our drug costs fund innovation of new medications and devices.  Despite the relationship between US drug prices and world drug innovation, many participants still did not think it FAIR that people in the US pay more than those in other countries.

Some held high the banner of altruism and seemed happy having the US play this role.  Others felt perhaps that even within the US that medication prices should be on a sliding scale based on what a household could afford.  Some shared personal stories about themselves or people they know who have had to choose between paying for their medications and paying other bills.

Yet others remained firm that prices could drop while maintaining innovation if pharmaceutical companies could lower their profits to reasonable margins.  Some attendees implied that companies could reduce their expenses by accelerating the clinical research process, a point that was strongly opposed by a former industry employee.  Pharmaceutical companies have no interest in accelerating clinical research in this manner because it would cause less confidence in drug safety.

As we were wrapping up our Conversation, we faced the question of whether or not the way we finance medications is sustainable.  Our vocal attendees had faith in the free market to correct anything that was broken.  Others remarked that the balance of medications on and off patent would also help with price competition once medications go off patent.

Our ISPOR facilitators emphasized that drug pricing is a complex ecosystem.  They recommended that consumers, scientists, policy-makers and health care providers and administrators continue to learn and share their perspectives, in venues such as Community Conversations, as much as possible in order to find a stable and sustainable relationship between medication access and innovation.

To read some excellent resources on the topic, visit the Community Conversation archive and scroll until you find the “war on drug prices” topic.

~JenWroblewski

Crisis in Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Are you Chicken? A Community Conversation Reflection

During the autumn round of Community Conversations in Portland, OR and Seattle and Spokane, WA, we discussed the concern that ongoing antibiotic use in large-scale commercial chicken farms is producing antibiotic resistant (ABR) bacteria that contribute to more difficult-to-treat human diseases. In a 2014 report on antibiotic (ABX) resistance, the World Health Organization warns of humanity heading for a “post-antibiotic” era in which antibiotics can’t keep up with ABR and the diseases they cause.

Who are the stakeholders in this situation? Large- and small-scale farmers, consumers, researchers looking for new drugs that kill bacteria and medical professionals who want healthy patients. With all these stakeholders, how are we to address this potential public health crisis?

The One Health Initiative holds that human, animal and environmental health are all connected. ABX use practices in food animal agriculture are of particular interest, but not everyone agrees that there is sufficient evidence that the use of ABX in chickens (or other food animals) directly results in ABR infections in people.

Despite expected regional differences, participants in the Conversations were united in several areas. One, we simply need more data. The Food and Drug Administration only recently (2009) began collecting sales data for antimicrobials in food-producing animals. No one is sure what is actually being used. Legislation attempts to limit ABX use and require record-keeping both federally and in some states, including Oregon, have not garnered enough support. Two, consumer education needs are high. We are inundated with messaging and food labeling that is sometimes great marketing (rBST-free!—but there isn’t a significant difference in the milk from cows treated or not with rBST) but low on information (how are egg-laying hens treated if they are cage free?). Many of us still believe that if we have a cold for more than 3 days we are good candidates for antibiotics. Three, the conversation tends to use rhetoric that is sensationalized and prevents authentic discussion. For example, “factory farms are overusing antibiotics and are mostly responsible for this crisis.” Toxic rhetoric.

Participants rallied around some practical action items. People committed to investigating the meaning of food labels. People committed to better hand washing and to touching their faces less often (did you know 30% of people carry MRSA in their nose?). Many also committed to sharing their new knowledge both professionally and personally.

All in all, this round of Community Conversations was high in energy and commitment to better living through smarter consumption of food, data and antibiotics.

Many thanks to our facilitators Kathy Hessler, JD, LL.M and Emma Newton, MS (Portland); Heather Fowler, VMD, MPH and Paul Pottinger, MD (Seattle); and Doug Call, PhD (Spokane). Thank you to our Spokane Series Sponsor, Whitworth University.

 

Speak Up For Research Education Fund

How did science hook you?

Strawberry DNA extraction

Did you have a teacher whose lab was your favorite place to hang out in high school? Were you a biology graduate student who fought for better treatment of animals and found a calling in animal care or health ethics? Did you travel and see suffering that would be diminished with the right vaccination?

I got hooked as a member of the St John Ambulance Brigade in New Zealand where as a teenager I was able to volunteer in ambulances, hospitals and rest homes and saw evolving treatments driven by research.

I’m both excited about science and concerned about its future. I see a growing distrust in biomedical research, waning science literacy and an almost perverse celebration of anti-science sentiments; this all of course at a time when new biomedical research breakthroughs are occurring on a daily basis. Here at NWABR, we see the possibilities of science and are excited by the opportunities for young people to get hooked into fascinating and important science fields—but we also see a gap in the science education for the general public that results in twisted logic, misinformation, hijacked conversations and bad policy decisions.

NWABR bridges that gap, combats that misinformation, and leads spirited and informative conversations about complex issues related to biomedical research.  And we need your help.

Today, I’m asking readers you to join our newest fundraising initiative: the Speak Up For Research Education Fund.  Over the last two years more that 1,400 people have joined NWABR at a series of events:

• Perhaps they volunteered for our popular Bio Expo that engaged close to 700 high school students;
• Or they attended a Community Conversation on the ethics of end of life care, or vaccinations, or direct to consumer genetic testing.
• Perhaps they are a professional dedicated to ethical protections for humans and animals in research and you attended one of our research conferences;
• Or they attended our Security Conference and joined colleagues from across the country who are committed to keeping scientists, their facilities and their work safe.

This campaign to create a Speak Up For Research Education Fund is about protecting the belief and trust in biomedical research and ensuring that this work can continue robustly into the future.

Join the Speak Up For Research Education Fund and make a donation today by visiting:  https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/nwabr?code=Speak%20Up%20For%20Research

Alternatively you can send a contribution to the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research, 2633 Eastlake Ave E., Suite 302, Seattle WA 98102.

All supporters will be thanked by name in our public materials, unless of course they request to make an anonymous contribution.  All contributions will also be acknowledged with a tax deduction receipt.

This is a vital time for science – with the support of the Speak Up For Research Education Fund we can continue and expand the work of engaging students, families and communities with science.  With the support of this fund then one student at a time, one family at a time, one community at a time we will build support for, and trust in, biomedical research.

Thank you for Speaking Up For Research.

Kind Regards

 

Ken Gordon – Executive Director

Northwest Association for Biomedical Research

(P) 206-957-3337 (C) 206-595-2450

 

 

Local philanthropists drive biomedical impacts in the Northwest

Dear all

We are all so lucky to live here in the Pacific Northwest. We have this amazing environment, amazing weather (today for example the weather is perfect) and we live in a community of such smart and caring people.

We are also lucky that due to both current and past philanthropists – the Northwest is the place to be if you get sick. Lets be clear we are all going to die (and if you are interested in issues with end of life care you should see the planned Community Conversation that Jen Wroblewski is planning for June 3 titled “What do science, medicine and our culture tell us about end of life?”) – that said, the amazing research hospitals here in the Northwest will both prolong your life and improve the quality of care that we have during the period before we die.

There is no doubt that philanthropists have driven the development of the amazing research hospitals in our region. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for example was inspired by the philanthropic efforts of Dr. William Hutchinson and was named for his brother Fred who died of cancer in 1964.

The philanthropic contributions to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center received a huge boost last month when the Bezos family donated $20m to support the Center’s work on cancer immunotherapy.

Paul Allen has been a major supporter of brain research with gifts of several hundred million dollars over the past decade.

The Gates Foundation in turn has been funding the development of innovative ways to stop diseases and improve health care.

There is no doubt that these significant gifts have driven a sea change in health care, and have put the Pacific Northwest at the leading edge of research driven health care improvements. I don’t ever want to get sick and I also note that getting sick here in the Northwest is one of the luckiest things that could happen – thanks in large part to all of these amazing donors.

Take care

Ken Gordon
Executive Director

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate – why is it even a question?

Dear all

Recently I had a long discussion with some fellow parents about the merits of vaccinations.  I have to confess that when it comes to vaccinations I have drunken the Kool-Aid.  I believe that vaccinations have been responsible for saving hundreds of millions of lives and improving the quality of life of billions more.  As a kid growing up in New Zealand I received all of the recommended vaccinations.  When I was in the process of moving to the United States the immigration service had to have proof of my vaccination history and the easiest way to achieve this was to be re-vaccinated for everything.  Also because I have worked in a number of developing countries I have received vaccinations for a range of less well-known lurgies.

In my view vaccinations are a public health issue.  We have been lucky in the developed world to not see epidemics of polio, whooping-cough, rubella, measles and the list goes on.  Vaccinations have been the major driver of the near eradication of many of these diseases.

It is therefore incredibly worrying to see that diseases like Polio starting to pick up in places like Syria and Pakistan.  Polio is a horrible disease that can be fatal and can lead to long periods of hospitalization and lifelong disabilities.  Polio disproportionately affects children under the age of five.

You may wonder why we should be concerned here in America about the resurgence of Polio out there in the rest of the world.  The reality is that these days – as far as disease is concerned – there are no borders.  A person exposed to Polio in Syria today – if they have not been previously immunized could be a unknowing carrier in Seattle tomorrow.  What makes matters worse is that in many of the more affluent pockets of America immunization rates for diseases such as Polio have fallen way below the target 90 percent level that is thought necessary to stop epidemics.

So why do parents not get their children immunized.  The reasons I heard in the above mentioned discussion are:

• our children are healthy – and can therefore cope with diseases.
• its better for a child’s immune systems to not be immunized.
• there are risks associated with vaccines that outweigh the risks of the diseases.
• there is a link between vaccines and autism.
• there is a link between vaccines and autism for the next generation (i.e. we can pass on susceptibility to autism that we gained through vaccination to our children).
• there is a distrust of western medicine and western doctors.

These views are not extreme.  Google “Vaccinations” and within a few hits you will see many of these same ideas being touted.  There is also a kernel of truth in some of these items.  Vaccines are not risk free.  According to the CDC the chance of a serious allergic reaction  to the MMR vaccine is about 1 in a million.  If you are the parent of that one in a million child then that does not feel like it is a rare occurrence.  If on the other hand your child does get measles there is a 15 percent chance of pneumonia, measles croup or convulsions.  Two unlucky children in every thousand will on average contract encephalitis, which in turn can lead to brain damage and death.  One incredibly unlucky child in every 100,000 may get subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which causes progressive brain damage and nearly always results in death.  Catching measles is many times more likely to cause death than being vaccinated – but it is true that vaccinations are not risk free.

On the other hand there is no truth to the myths that there are links between autism and vaccinations.  This myth derived from bad research – since disproven and withdrawn – but the myths persist.

The hardest argument to counter is that western medicine and doctors can not be trusted.  This is an area that we work on at NWABR.  People trust people who are honest, who acknowledge mistakes, who acknowledge that they do not know everything, and who continually strive to improve.  At NWABR we are working to both show all of the amazing gains that biomedical research has brought to the world and to also be as honest as we can about areas where things went wrong and where we need to do more work. We believe that there is no other way to rebuild trust – that has so clearly been lost.

I can’t persuade any person to change their mind about vaccinations.  But what I can do is really hear their concerns, attempt to distill some clarity from all of the opposing positions and provide data to support conclusions.   The parents that I was talking to will do what they will do.  Their children are healthy and for them the risks are  definitely at the low-end.  My only hope and wish is that if their children ever do become sick that they don’t then unwittingly become carriers of their disease.  Their children’s robust systems may well be able to cope but the record low levels of vaccinations do mean that many more people will get to share their disease, and some of those people will not do so well.

Regards

Ken Gordon

Executive Director

 

 

 

 

Half of US adults 40 to 75 eligible for statins

A report in today’s Seattle Times suggests that cholesterol lowering statins will be in most of your futures.  Based on research from Duke University (which surveyed 4,000 people) it is now estimated that half of US adults between the ages of 40 to 75, and nearly all men over the age of 70 meet recently changed criteria for the use of statins. 

The guidelines for the use of statins were devised by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology.  The Duke study estimates that half a million strokes and heart attacks over a ten year period could be prevented if the new guidelines were followed. 

There is some criticism of the new guidelines which favor the use of statins over other lifestyle changes (such as not smoking or working to reduce stress).

Ken Gordon

Executive Director

Community Conversation – 23andMe – What Can Your Genes Tell You

Last evening (Tuesday March 18, 2014) the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (NWABR) hosted a Community Conversation that explored the issues around Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing.

These Community Conversations are a partnership between NWABR and the Institute for Translational Health Sciences at the University of Washington.  The purpose of these Community Conversations is to enable members of the public to become engaged with emerging issues in the bioscience realm.  Our hope is that an engaged public will be better placed to think through complex scientific and ethical issues, make informed contributions, build relations with experts in the field – and most importantly – provide those same experts with feedback from a community perspective on these issues.

At the Community Conversation hosted yesterday evening around 35 people gathered to discuss direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.  The company 23andMe has been providing this service to customers and approximately 650,000 people have both had their DNA tested and agreed to share their records to help build a DNA database that will, hopefully, in the future improve the accuracy of the findings that 23andMe can report to their customers.

The FDA has asked 23andMe to stop marketing the health benefits of this testing service and to no longer provide direct findings to customers about any health implications arising from the genetic tests that they perform.  The FDA is concerned that a consumer may misinterpret the results that they receive from 23andMe and subsequently make poorly informed health care decisions.

Yesterday’s Community Conversation was held at Kakao Chocolate + Coffee in Westlake.  The Conversation was facilitated by Sarah Nelson and Lorelei Walker, who are MPH and PhD candidates in Public Health Genetics at the University of Washington.  Following the presentations from Ms. Nelson and Ms. Walker the participants had a wide ranging discussion that touched on: privacy, trust, potential commercializing of DNA, the need for access to this information. the need for help in interpreting the information, resistance from some members of the medical community, the current lack of diversity in the 23andMe database, support for and frustration with the FDA and much more.

As we the staff at NWABR watched the conversation progress we were amazed that such a great group had come out on a Tuesday evening, given up their own time, and dived so eagerly into this complex area.  We were again reminded of just how rich discussions can be when these two sometimes diverse worlds come together.

Regards

Ken Gordon

Executive Director

Northwest Association for Biomedical Research

Registration Opens for NWABR’s Camp BIOmed, a new summer camp for high school students

Students entering 9^th-12^th grade can now sign-up for three of the four exciting summer camp sessions organized by Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (NWABR).  Each of the four camp tracks for Camp BIOmed are a week long and will be repeated for seven weeks, starting July 7 through August 23.

Students and parents can register and find additional information about the programs at www.nwabr.org/campbiomed.

The four summer camp programs focus on various topics relating to biomedical research and its ethical conduct, which include:

Bioethics thru Gaming
Protein Foldit! Be a Citizen Scientist
Hive Bio (Do it Yourself) Lab with Neuroscience
Lab Intensive Experience

Throughout the summer camps, students will take part in hands-on experiments at local biomedical businesses and research facilities, track their own findings as part of these experiments in lab journals, and tour local Seattle biomedical organizations. Each week of the summer camp will conclude with a culminating expo where campers will share all group and individual projects and contributions.

Early bird registration is open now for members for $450-$525 depending on track.  Non-members can begin registering on January 29 by signing up as a member ($25, plus the camp fee).  The price for camp for all will increase after March 31 by $90 for all tracks.  Financial assistance for partial camperships are available for students to attend the program.  The financial assistance application is available in the camp registration at http://www.nwabr.org/campbiomed

To register for Camp BIOmed check out www.nwabr.org/campbiomed

For more information, contact camp@nwabr.org

About NWABR

NWABRs mission is to promote the understanding of biomedical research and its ethical conduct. NWABR is dedicated to strengthening public trust in biomedical research, through education and dialogue. Through our diverse membership of academic organizations, biotech industry, non-profit research institutes, health care, and voluntary health organizations, along with extensive education programs, we foster a shared commitment to the ethical conduct of research and ensure the vitality of the life sciences community.

NIH Science Education Programs at Risk

Proposed Reorganization of STEM Programs Threatens Funding for Health and Biomedical Education

Click HERE for the photobook of programs that will be impacted by the proposed reorganization.

On April 10, 2013, the White House submitted a FY14 budget request to Congress that radically reorganizes federally-funded Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education (STEM) programs across multiple agencies, particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA.  In the proposal, 266 programs across 13 agencies would be consolidated into 122 programs. The budget proposal identifies the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the Smithsonian as the primary agencies to organize and oversee future federally-funded STEM education efforts.

The following day, NIH held a conference call for all NIH grantees with funding for K-12 and informal science and health education projects. Dr. Larry Tabak, principal deputy director at NIH, announced that NIH is “pausing” funding for these programs. No new grants will be awarded. Non-competing renewals will be funded in FY 2013, but funding after that is uncertain. While increased coordination of STEM education across federal agencies is a laudable goal, several consequences of the proposed changes have profound implications for health and biomedical education in the US.  In particular, the elimination of the Office of Science Education at the National Institutes of Health and the Science Education Partnership Award  (SEPA) and similar science education programs at individual NIH institutes would threaten our national competitiveness, security, public health, and broader understanding of, and support for, science.

The NIH Office of Science Education (OSE) is scheduled to close at the end of September, 2013.  The OSE has had a tremendous impact on health science education through its many programs.  For example, OSE staff have distributed 450,000 Curriculum Supplements to approximately 100,000 educators across the U.S.  Their website receives over one million hits/year. If you are interested in receiving hard copies of their popular Curriculum Supplement series, please contact them at oseATscience.education.nih.gov.

The journal Science, in Wild Cards Remain After Proposed Reshuffle of STEM Education (April 19, 2013; vol 340, p. 258-259), notes the following:

Many science educators say that the proposed cuts would scrap effective programs just as the country needs to be doing more.  ‘”The SEPA program is the face of the NIH to the country,” says a grantee on one of the programs facing the chopping block. “It’s a vehicle for telling the public how NIH is translating science into practice,” says the grantee, who requested anonymity (p. 258).

The Co-STEM Committee at the Office of Science and Technology Policy is scheduled to release a strategic plan in mid-May with additional information.

The following link provides the complete list of programs under consideration to be paused/consolidated/eliminated:

Proposed STEM Education Reorganization Contained in the President’s FY14 Budget Request
Note especially the following list relative to health and biomedical education:

• 30 Clinical Research Training Program HHS
• 31 Curriculum Supplement Series HHS
• 32 NIAID Science Education Awards HHS
• 33 NINDS Diversity Research Education Grants in Neuroscience HHS
• 34 NLM Institutional Grants for Research Training in Biomedical Informatics HHS
• 35 OD Science Education Partnership Award HHS (SEPA)
• 36 Office of Science Education K-12 Program HHS (NIH Office of Science Education)
• 37 Public Health Traineeship HHS
• 38 Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award HHS
• 39 Short Term Educational Experiences for Research (STEER) in the Environmental health Sciences for Undergraduates and High School Students HHS

The following are points raised by the SEPA community in response to this development:

The Need for Health and Biomedical Science Education Programs Aimed at Grades K–12 and the Broader Public at the NIH

Health and biomedical sciences for grades K-12 are critical components of STEM education that help to ensure the nation’s capability to prevent disease and improve health. The proposed 2014 STEM education consolidation plan, however, eliminates K-12 and informal health and biomedical science education from its traditional place in the portfolio of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and, by default, from the national STEM education agenda. No other federal agency supports programs comparable to those that would be lost.

More than 65 NIH-funded, K-12 health and biomedical science education projects currently operate in 40 states. These include “in-person” programs for more than 82,500 K-12 students and 5,750 K-12 teachers each year, and online programs that reach more than 20 million K-12 students and educators annually. NIH-funded exhibitions at some of the nation’s largest museums and science centers reach millions more students, teachers and families. With emphasis on engaging underserved populations, K-12 educational initiatives supported by NIH create thoroughly evaluated, science-rich interactive exhibits, curriculum materials, teacher professional development programs, student and teacher research experiences, and out-of-school learning opportunities. Ongoing NIH-funded K-12 educational programs benefit the nation in the following ways.

• Improve preparation for, and access to careers in medicine, healthcare, biotechnology and biomedical research, with a focus on students from under-represented groups.Address health disparities by increasing access to college and health professions careers for under-served students, who are more likely than their peers to practice in medically underserved areas.
• Build public understanding and support of biomedical research and clinical trials through educational programs that emphasize the relationship between NIH discoveries and their translation into positive health outcomes.
• Encourage and facilitate involvement of biomedical research scientists in K-12 STEM education, and engage the resources of colleges, universities, medical schools and science museums in supporting K-12 STEM education.
• Promote health literacy and better decision-making to address preventable health problems among America’s youth, reduce the burdens of chronic illnesses and infectious diseases, and enable consumers to make sense of genetic and other newly available health information.
• Increase students’ interest in STEM topics through personally relevant examples from health and biomedicine that are aligned with recommendations of the Next Generation Science Standards.

For more than two decades, NIH has invested in the development of human capital and a unique infrastructure that is meeting our nation’s K-12 health and biomedical science education needs. These investments have produced significant, demonstrable outcomes that would not have been possible otherwise. Current K-12 programs sponsored by NIH, including the Office of Science Education, employ rigorous, results-oriented and cost-effective approaches to tackle major national issues, as listed below.

• Jobs: Healthcare and biomedical science are crucial elements of the economy. The US Department of Commerce estimates that healthcare accounts for $1.75 trillion in revenues and employs more than 14 million people (nine percent of the US workforce).
• Provider Shortages: The nation faces an acute shortage of healthcare workers in all areas, and the problem is expected to grow. The American Association of Medical Colleges projects that there will be a shortage of more than 90,000 physicians—including 45,000 primary care physicians—by the end of the decade. About 55 million people already lack access to a physician.
• Wellness and Disease Prevention: According to the Milken Institute, more than half of all Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases, many of which are preventable. Healthcare spending is projected to reach almost 20% of the US gross domestic product by 2021. Racial and ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from diseases such as cancer, diabetes and HIV/AIDS, but participate less frequently in programs that could help to reduce disparities.

Without K-12 health and biomedical science education initiatives, our nation will be unable to solve many of its most pressing workforce, economic and healthcare problems.

Download points above as a PDF: NIH-K12
Sources: Fixing the Doctor Shortage (AAMC) – Health Economic Fact Sheet – The Health and Medical Technology Industry in the United States  – Next Generation Science Standards – Milken Institute Center for Health Economics

Fig. 1. Distribution of 2012 Science Education Partnership Awards by State.
Nearly every state will be impacted by these changes.

Taking action:

• Please contact members of:  The House Committee on Appropriations (Particularly members of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee) with your concerns.
  This is especially important if you belong to a district which a member of the Committee represents.
•  Additionally, contact members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Additional Resources
Please contact us at jchowningATnwabr.org with suggestions and corrections

• NIH FY 2014 budget (http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/fy14/fy 2014_overview.pdf); funding for the SEPA program is specifically not included in the budget (see budget summary on page 35).
• The Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP) issued Preparing a 21st Century Workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education in the 2013 Budget, which highlights changes in STEM education proposed in the presidential FY14 budget.
• OSTP 2-page overview of FY2014 science budget and goals
• GAO report to Congressional Requesters (January 2012)
  Strategic Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs Across Multiple Agencies
• Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Chair: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), “Raising the Bar: Reviewing STEM Education in America” (April 10, 2013)
• Government Strategy Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs, George Scott, Government Accountability Office (April 10. 2013)
• ED Week: Obama Budget Features New Plans for STEM, High Schools (April 12, 2013)
• AAAS’s news release about the budget proposal

Cultivating Connections…Inspiring the Future

NWABR’s Annual Fundraising Dinner: Come Celebrate with Us!

June 4, 2013
415 Westlake Ave N, Seattle, WA

Save the date! Reserve your tables and seats!

NWABR’s annual fundraising event is a celebration of our life sciences community that brings together over 300 researchers, educators and students from across the Pacific Northwest region. We are privileged to honor three visionary leaders, each of whom has created cultures committed to inspiring our future scientists.

Leroy Hood, MD, PhD, President, Institute for Systems Biolology
Susanna Cunningham, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor, School of Nursing, University of Washington
Carolyn Hovde Bohach, PhD, Director, IDeA Network of Biomedical ResearchExcellence, University of Idaho

Program:
5:30 p.m. – Reception featuring the Student Bio Expo winners
6:30 – 8:30 p.m. – Dinner & Program

If you have any questions, please contact info@nwabr.org. Come celebrate with us!

Rally for Medical Research–View Live!

On Monday, April 8 at 8 am. Pacific Time,  our NWABR community is proud to join over 200 partner organizations across the country in the Rally for Medical Research.  To watch the Rally live, click HERE. To follow the activities on Twitter, connect with #RallyMedRes. Never before have so many in the medical research community come together in such a public way to express support for NIH.

Youth Ethics Summit: Science Saturday for Students

NWABR, University of Washington (UW) Department of Bioengineering, and UW Microfabrication Facility hosted 51 high school students (one made a special trip from Idaho) from 22 schools at the University of Washington on Saturday, March 2. Featuring laboratory tours, UW student showcase, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and breakout sessions on global health, artificial organs, computer science and nanotechnology, the day was full of hands-on activities and interactions with bioengineering students and professionals.

These are a few statements from our participants that demonstrate the impact of this day-long event:

“The demonstrations were the best, I thought, but the explanations taught me how everything ties together. The science is cool, the outfits were wacky and the whole thing was very well-done and enjoyable.”

“It showed me that I can incorporate my love for biology, genetics, and problem-solving into one field.”

“I loved [the Artificial Organs] breakout session. The need for bioengineering in the artificial organ area was not one that had previously occurred to me. I can see myself working in that field.”

“I am interested in medicine or sciences and this field works on technology and methods to improve health of people around the world.”

“I learned a lot and enjoyed every moment. It was highly interesting and involving. I am now more interested in bioengineering than I ever thought I’d be.”

Falling Off the “Fiscal Cliff”: As Funding Cuts Loom, Americans Are Willing to Pay for Biomedical Research

As pundits project and partisans dig in on Capitol Hill, Americans remain committed to investing in biomedical research, and are even willing to spend more of their tax dollars to advance science in their communities. According to a new national public opinion poll commissioned by Research!America:

• More than 50% say they would be willing to pay $1 more per week if the dollars would go to medical research – even in these tough fiscal times.
• More than three-quarters (78%) say that it is important that the U.S. work to improve health globally through research and innovation.
• Nearly 70% believe that the federal government should increase support for programs and policies that would increase the number of young Americans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
• 68% say it’s important that the federal research and development tax credit is made permanent.

How might falling off the “fiscal cliff” affect biomedical research in Washington State? The biomedical research sector provides thousands of jobs in Washington: pharmaceutical (2,490); medical device (7,760); research, testing, and laboratories (15,088); and overall private sector (2,429,884).  Further reduction in NIH and NSF funding to biomedical research could affect this sector and reduce employment opportunities nation-wide, forcing job-seekers to relocate or potentially discourage students from pursuing scientific careers.

Current NIH funding has designated Seattle as the hub for comparative-effectiveness research in cancer. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Group Health Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Public Health are leading projects in cancer genomics, cancer diagnostics, breast imaging, and cancer screening. Results from these projects will provide vital information in diagnosis, treating, and communicating information about cancer to medical professionals, patients and their families, and health insurance companies. The threatened reduction in funding could impact these critical programs and may delay evaluations of testing and treatments for cancer patients. Without continued biomedical research funding in Washington—and across the U.S.—we compromise our ability to evaluate cancer diagnostic tools, screening tests, treatments, and a balanced assessment of cost and benefit.

Time is running out on Capitol Hill. While it’s absolutely necessary to reduce the deficit, more spending cuts that hinder medical progress are harmful to public health, the economy, and global innovation. The Northwest is a national leader in biomedical research and innovation, and our representatives can still save thousands of jobs, and $70 million in grant funding in Washington alone. Reach out to our lawmakers today—before they adjourn for the holiday—and count yourself among the majority of Americans who take action to preserve and advance biomedical research funding.

NWABR Urges Congress to Preserve Biomedical Research Funding

Sequestration could cost WA at least $70 million in grant funding

Now that the election is finally over, it’s easy to be distracted from the ongoing work of the current congress, and the looming threat that budget sequestration poses to the biomedical research industry. The Budget Control Act of 2011 requires that across-the-board cuts to be applied to a large portion of the federal budget on January 2, 2013, unless Congress reverses it. For domestic programs, around $39 billion in cuts would be applied to “discretionary” programs, which include the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).  According to a United for Medical Research report, if NIH funding is cut by 7.8% as part of budget sequestration, the state of Washington will be hit especially hard, with a loss of 1,184 jobs and $72.2 million in grants supported by this funding. And that is just the beginning.

This week, members of Research!America, a nonprofit advocacy alliance, are headed to Capitol Hill to make the case that sequestration is harmful not just for biomedical research, but also for our economy. As part of their Save Research campaign, NWABR was proud to sign a letter urging congressional leaders to reject any deficit reduction proposals that would cut research funding or hinder incentives that support biomedical innovation.

The full letter is posted below. Please take a moment to reach out to your congressional delegation and ask them to preserve funding that will help combat disease and spur private sector innovation in the Northwest and beyond.

Dear Mr. Reid, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner, and Ms. Pelosi:

As advocates for biomedical and health research, we are writing to urge you to refrain from deploying deficit reduction strategies, like sequestration, that would slow medical progress.

Our nation leads the world in biomedical and health research, a function of public sector support and private sector ingenuity. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is unrivaled in spurring the basic discovery that lays the path for private sector innovation. Peer-reviewed NIH funding reaches all 50 states and congressional districts, spurring discovery at universities, hospitals, small businesses, and independent research institutes. In fact, NIH-supported research has:

• Supported nearly 500,000 jobs in 2011 in every state
• Generated $62 billion in economic activity in 2011
• Helped increase life expectancy from 47 years in 1900 to 78 years in 2009

But this is not just about NIH.  The National Science Foundation (NSF), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) all provide a positive return on investment to our nation, protecting American lives and promoting American prosperity.

• NSF’s grant portfolio is designed to identify and pursue the best scientific opportunities across the spectrum  of scientific disciplines, including biomedical research.
• FDA is a key conduit between medical discovery and medical progress, laying the path for safe and effective  medical products to reach the marketplace.
• CDC conducts and supports the public health research needed to contain disease outbreaks, promote wellness, and in other ways provide basic supports for a safe and healthy society; and
• AHRQ combats entrenched and insidious problems in our nation’s health care system – like preventable medical errors and needless administrative red tape — that take lives and inflate the cost of taxpayer funded health programs and private insurance alike.

Disinvesting from biomedical and health research – and the infrastructure and expertise needed to conduct it – would contravene the goal of deficit reduction. This research is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our economy, a reality well understood by other nations, which are ramping up their investment and building out their research infrastructure.  Research is a catalyst that creates businesses large and small, and generates jobs in research, manufacturing, distribution, exports, health care and a host of other sectors. Those businesses and jobs supply federal revenue needed to reduce the deficit.

In addition, research can help stem runaway federal healthcare spending, which is driving our deficit. While new treatments may require additional cost at the outset, research has shown the offsetting effects of reduced hospitalizations, fewer visits to providers, reduced home care, a reduction in the Social Security disability roles, and improved productivity.  As you well know, the cost of treating diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other diseases are exploding. There is no high-impact alternative to research as a means of addressing this crisis.

When it comes to the fiscal health of our nation, biomedical and health research are part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Whether it is appropriations policy or entitlement and tax reform, we urge you to discard any proposal that cuts funding or mutes incentives for public- and private-sector supported medical innovation.   Compassion and pragmatism intersect in the decision to do so.

Thank you for your consideration.

Join Us: May 8 for our next monthly Community Conversation!

Topic: “Is animal research justified?”

A discussion co-facilitated by Cindy Pekow, DVM; Chief, Veterinary Medical Unit, VA Puget Sound and Joan Griswold, MIT; Curriculum Design Lead, NWABR; 2012 Annual Fundraising Dinner Honoree

click here to register

When:   May8, 2012
Time:     Beginning at 5:30 pm, until 7:00 pm
Cost:      $5 at time of Registration
Where:  415 Westlake, Seattle, WA at Kakao Coffee and Chocolate in the South Lake Union neighborhood
Eats:      NWABR-hosted with appetizers and beverages

Learn more about our Community Conversations at our web site, or contact Jen Wroblewski at jenniferw@nwabr.org.  See you there!

Student Bio Expo seeks creative and curious minds…

… with scientific savvy to judge unique projects on May 24th! Judge registration is now open. Please check out the Expo Judge page for more information (http://nwabr.org/community/student-bio-expo/judges). We not only invite members of the community with a science background, but also those who are creative and have a curious mind.

We have 13 categories that need judges (Art, Career and Industry, Drama and Dance, Lab Research, Molecular Modeling, Music, Multimedia, Teaching, Website Design, Creative Writing, Journalism, SeaVuria (formerly Global Health), and SMART Teams (advanced molecular modeling)), so there’s something for everyone. Join us for a unique science fair experience!!!

Feel free to contact Jenn Pang (jpang@nwabr.org) for more information.  See you there!!!

Congratulations Jeanne Chowning on 10 wonderful years!

Our own Jeanne Chowning has been with us now ten, wonderful years. The words in this graphic are those Jeanne’s peers and coworkers have used to describe her, and her work in their notes and letters of appreciation!

Got Stress? Time to Quit- a Seattle CityClub public lunch forum

Just in time for the stressful holidays….Join NWABR and Seattle CityClub for our Wednesday November 30th public forum with lunch! This will be a timely discussion with local and national experts on STRESS–what causes it, what it does to us and how to reduce it.

Details

What: Got Stress? Time to Quit. Public forum and lunch.
When: Wednesday November 30th. Doors open at 11:30. Program 12:00-1:30pm.
Where: Town Hall– 1119 8th Ave
Cost:
Buffet Luncheon: $20/CityClub Members | $25/Guests and co-presenters | $30/General public

Coffee & Dessert: $12/CityClub Members | $15/Guests and co-presenters | $18/General public
Register: http://www.SeattleCityClub.org to register or call 206-682-7395!

Join us for Life Sciences Research Weekend — Nov 4 – 6

Experience science at its finest – hands-on, exploratory, and just plain fun!

NWABR and Pacific Science Center invite you to the 5th annual

Nov. 4-6 – Friday through Sunday at Pacific Science Center

Friday 10am-4pm, and Saturday and Sunday 10am-5pm.

Life sciences companies and research institutions from around the state will host interactive exhibits that reflect the cutting edge research that is taking place in our state.

If you want to meet scientists that have great passion for the work they do, plan to attend! Life Science Research Weekend events are included with regular Pacific Science Center admission.

For more information, visit http://www.nwabr.org/community/life-sciences-research-weekend

This program is made possible by a SEPA grant to Pacific Science Center from NCRR at National Institutes of Health.

The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America

Tuesday, October 25, 2011
3:30-4:45p.m.
Hogness Auditorium, Health Sciences Center, University of Washington

Dr. Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D.

David and Lynn Silfen University Professor
University of Pennysylvania

Dr. Moreno offers an engaging history of the intersection between science and democracy in American life, a reasoned analysis of how different political ideologies view scientific controversies, and a vision for how the new biopolitics can help shape the quality of our lives.

More information: http://depts.washington.edu/hserv/cal?3251

Dr. Moreno was interviewed this October 19th on FOX News about our preparedness to sustain another anthrax style bio defense attack.  His recommendation?  Invest more in biotechnology.  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/happening-now/index.html#/v/1222304472001/anthrax-attacks-10-years-later/?playlist_id=86919

Dr. Moreno also raises key issues in this brief interview in the Atlantic Monthly on globalization and neuroscience:
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/a-conversation-with-jonathan-d-moreno-bioethicist-and-professor/246013/

For more information about the MHA’s Dialogues in Ethics, Health Services, and Science initiative, contact:  Kathryn M. Hinsch, Clinical Faculty, at khinsch@uw.edu or call 206-200-1101.