Eddie Pauline, president and chief executive, Ohio Life Sciences
The current debate on the ceiling on general federal research costs lacks the tree forest.
Federal investments in medical research have built a prosperous American biotechnological sector which employs 2.3 million people. The financing of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides the basics of this success, supporting universities and research institutions that attract the best scientists and promote innovation.
Laura Gunter, president, organization of life sciences from Caroline du Nord
The cuts offered by the Trump administration to reimburse indirect NIH costs – were written by some as simple “general costs” – threatened to undermine American exceptionalism, yielding our leadership in the life sciences, world health and biosecurity in China.
After the Second World War, the United States created the largest research company in the world, which has motivated American innovation for decades.
Rather than centralizing federal research, the United States has made the decision to conduct research in the country’s universities and institutes by co-investing in the development of the research infrastructure.
Marc Cummings, President and Chief Executive Officer, Life Science Washington
By funding world-class facilities, the United States has attracted the best scientists to conduct revolutionary research, which, in turn, has obtained private investments to transform this research into vital drugs. Today, life science companies invest $ 65 for each dollar The NIH contributes to a successful drug. It is an incredible return on investment.
So, this debate does not really concern general costs. It is a question of maintaining the partnership between the federal government, the universities and the medical research institutions that have enabled the United States to be the world leader in science and innovation for decades.
Stephen Rapundalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Michigan Biosciences Industry Association
These funds keep the lights on, maintain advanced laboratories and allow advanced searches that feed the American biotechnological industry. Reducing them may seem a well-intentioned cost reduction measure, but it is a dangerous step towards the dismantling of the infrastructure that has enabled the United States to be the world leader in biotechnology investment And New drug development.
Meanwhile, China does not debate general costs. He invests aggressively in universities, research parks and industry partnerships. It subsidizes companies conducting research within its borders, which makes you cheaper to conduct research, clinical trials and innovate. The results are amazing: in less than a decade, China has gone from a non-player to the almost license a third party Of all the new molecules acquired by the Grande Pharma last year.
In simple terms, our economy, health and national security depends on the maintenance of leadership in the development of new treatments, healing and defenses against biothres. We cannot afford to count on a foreign competitor and a potential adversary – for the health and security of the American people.
For generations, the first investments of our country in research have created new industries such as biotechnology and precision medicine, transforming lives and leading the American economy. These investments have not only benefited the coastal research centers. Universities and research institutions in red, blue and purple states depend on the financing of NIHs to fuel local economies, support jobs and stimulate scientific discovery.
Biotechnological clusters in North Carolina and Washington to the main research universities in Ohio and Michigan, this funding is essential to maintain American competitiveness across the country. The argument in terms of ceiling for installations and administrative rates is that institutions can fill the financing deficit through endowments.
The reality is that most institutions, in particular public universities, will have to turn to their states, which means an increase in state taxes, to find funding – or simply renounce funding.
It is not a distant threat. This is already affected by American institutions and companies. Research establishments have already started to suspend hiring, limit spending and cancel offers to graduate students, risking the loss of the best talents brightest to other countries that have been looking for years to reproduce the American innovation engine.
Meanwhile, business equity prices providing research tools have dropped 15-20% After the announcement of the nih cuts proposed. The market message was clear: weakening the American research business has immediate economic consequences.
China understands that. Although we debate cuts, this doubles the construction facilities, to attract the best talents and to promote partnerships with the aim of becoming a world leader in life innovation.
We always have the advantage, but it will not last without action. Protecting American leadership in life sciences is not only a question of national pride – it is economic force, global health and national security.
Think about it this way: taxpayers could save money by reducing “indirect costs” such as fire trucks and fire station. But no firefighter wants to work without a truck, and no one wants their fire service that comes by bike. The reduction in indirect costs would leave our research system not prepared.
A federal judge published a preliminary injunction in the case. Rather than placing a cloud of uncertainty about each research project and forcing our most innovative minds to look for opportunities abroad, we call on the Trump administration to abandon the case concerning the reductions in the general costs of the NIH and start a significant dialogue with industry and research leaders to identify the opportunities of efficiency while maintaining our position as a dominant life.
The choice is clear: we can invest to maintain our leadership or watch it escape in China. America cannot afford to be wrong.
This editorial was co-written by the leaders of four biotechnology associations:
- Eddie Pauline, president and chief executive, Ohio Life Sciences
- Laura Gunter, president, organization of life sciences from Caroline du Nord
- Marc Cummings, President and Chief Executive Officer, Life Science Washington
- Stephen Rapundalo, PHD, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Michigan Biosciences Industry Association