[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SCIENCE SPENDING

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 5, 2000

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the record an op-ed piece that 
appeared in yesterday's Washington Post--an op-ed that I am also 
distributing as a Dear Colleague letter.
  The column is by Dr. Harold Varmus, a distinguished Nobel Laureate 
and former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who is 
now president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York 
City.
  Dr. Varmus' point is that Congress needs to be investing adequately 
in science spending across the board, not just at NIH. Improvements in 
medicine rest on advancements in a wide variety of fields; we can't 
improve health in this country by focusing exclusively on NIH.
  This is advice we would be wise to heed. The federal research 
portfolio has become too skewed toward medical research. We need to 
address that imbalance not by reducing funding for NIH but by 
increasing funding for the other federal research agencies. That would 
be a wise investment in this time of surplus.
  I'm pleased to say that Congress is beginning to take steps in that 
direction. I know, for example, that the appropriations bill my good 
friend and neighbor Congressman Jim Walsh has put together includes a 
substantial increase for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
  But we need to make a comprehensive, consistent commitment to funding 
the entire federal science portfolio more generously. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to accomplish just that.

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2000]

                           Squeeze on Science

                           (By Harold Varmus)

       In recent weeks both presidential campaigns have voiced 
     their support of efforts to double the budget of the National 
     Institutes of Health. This is an encouraging sign that the 
     current bipartisan enthusiasm for medical research will 
     continue in the next administration. But it also offers an 
     opportunity to make an important point about the kinds of 
     science required to achieve breakthroughs against disease.
       The NIH does a magnificent job, but it does not hold all 
     the keys to success. The work of several science agencies is 
     required for advances in medical sciences, and the health of 
     some of those agencies is suffering.
       For the coming fiscal year, Congress has again--
     magnanimously and appropriately--slated the NIH for a major 
     increase, its third consecutive 15 percent increase. By these 
     actions, Congress has shown that it is determined to combat 
     the scourges of our time, including heart disease, cancer, 
     diabetes, AIDS and Alzheimer's disease.
       But Congress is not addressing with sufficient vigor the 
     compelling needs of the other science agencies, especially 
     the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science at 
     the Department of Energy. This disparity in treatment 
     undermines the balance of the sciences that is essential to 
     progress in all spheres, including medicine.
       I first observed the interdependence of the sciences as a 
     boy when my father--a general practitioner with an office 
     connected to our house--showed me an X-ray. I marveled at a 
     technology that could reveal the bones of his patients or the 
     guts of our pets. And I learned that it was something that 
     doctors, no matter how expert with a stethoscope or suture, 
     wouldn't have been likely to develop on their own.
       Of course, the X-ray is routine now. Medical science can 
     visualize the inner workings of the body at far higher 
     resolution with techniques that sound dazzlingly 
     sophisticated: ultrasound, positron-emission tomography and 
     computer-assisted tomography. These techniques are the 
     workhorses of medical diagnostics. And not a single one of 
     them could have been developed without the contributions of 
     scientists, such as mathematicians, physicists and chemists 
     supported by the agencies currently at risk.
       Effective medicines are among the most prominent products 
     of medical research, and drug development also relies heavily 
     on contributions from a variety of sciences. The traditional 
     method of random prospecting for a few promising chemicals 
     has been supplemented and even superseded by more rational 
     methods based on molecular structures, computer-based images 
     and chemical theory. Synthesis of promising compounds is 
     guided by new chemical methods that can generate either pure 
     preparations of a single molecule or collections of literally 
     millions of subtle variants. To exploit these new 
     possibilities fully, we need strength in many disciplines, 
     not just pharmacology.
       Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the 
     curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, 
     a combinational chemist or an engineer. Magnetic resonance 
     imaging is an excellent example. Perhaps the last century's 
     greatest advance in diagnosis. MRI is the product of atomic, 
     nuclear and high-energy physics, quantum chemistry, computer 
     science, cryogenics, solid state physics and applied 
     medicine.
       In other words, the various sciences together constitute 
     the vanguard of medical research. And it's time for Congress 
     to treat them that way. Sens. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and 
     Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) have just proposed to double the 
     budget of the National Science Foundation over five years. 
     This admirable effort should be vigorously supported and 
     extended to include the Department of Energy's Office of 
     Science, which fund half of all research in the physical 
     sciences and maintains the national laboratories that are 
     central to biomedicine.
       Scientists can wage an effective war on disease only if 
     we--as a nation and as a scientific community--harness the 
     energies of many disciplines, not just biology and medicine. 
     The allies must include mathematicians, physicists, engineers 
     and computer and behavioral scientists. I made this case 
     repeatedly during my tenure as director of NIH, and the NIH 
     has made significant efforts to boost its support of these 
     areas. But in the long run, it is essential to provide 
     adequate budgets for the agencies that traditionally fund 
     such work and train its practitioners. Moreover, this will 
     encourage the interagency collaboration that fuels 
     interdisciplinary science. Only in this way will medical 
     research be optimally poised to continue its dazzling 
     progress.

     

                          ____________________