[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 177 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7882-H7883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CRITICAL ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORTING BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last year, when I was chair of the Joint
Economic Committee, we held a hearing on the pivotal role of government
investment in basic research. We found that basic research spurs
exactly the kind of innovations that business leaders, academics and
policymakers have all identified as critical for our Nation's economic
growth.
But we also found that the private sector tends to underfund basic
research because it is undertaken with no specific commercial
applications in mind. Businesses, understandably, concentrate their
research and development spending on the development of products and
processes that may have direct commercial value.
A report produced by the Joint Economic Committee showed that the
Federal Government funds almost 60 percent of basic research in the
U.S. and highlighted one study that estimated that actual R&D
expenditures in the United States may be less than half of what the
optimal levels would be.
We are now engaged in an important national debate about how much and
where to cut Federal spending. And I wish to make the case for how
reckless and shortsighted it would be to cut into the budget lines that
fund the kind of vital, basic research that led to discovery,
innovation, and economic growth, because doing so would be, as that bit
of old folk wisdom goes, like cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Take the budget for the National Institutes of Health, for example.
The NIH strongly supports the kind of basic scientific research that
may not be directly useful in creating practical products yet, but it's
precisely this kind of research that can lead to the future development
of new and undreamed of biotech and pharmaceutical advances. It is work
that can lead to the kind of advances that will allow the establishment
of new products, grow new businesses, and produce private sector jobs.
Studies have shown that the money we spend supporting such scientific
research is one of the best investments our country can make. For
instance, out in Los Angeles, UCLA generates almost $15 in economic
activity for every taxpayer dollar that it invests, resulting in a
$9.33 billion, with a B, impact on the Los Angeles region.
In Houston, Texas, the estimated economic impact of Baylor is more
than $358 million, generating more than 3,000 jobs.
In my own district in New York, Dr. Samie Jaffrey, a pharmacologist
and faculty member at Weill Cornell Medical College, has just recently
developed a promising new technology for studying RNA in cells and has
just started a biotech company, all with NIH support.
Time and time again, basic research has been a game changer and an
economic incubator. Take the biotechnology company Genentech as an
example. It was founded on discoveries that were made within our
universities, and those discoveries were made with financial support of
grants from the National Institutes of Health. And those Federal funds
proved to be a very good investment.
Genentech has created over 11,000 jobs, and the company created
products that have had major effects on the health and economic well-
being of our Nation. Genentech developed drugs that treat certain
leukemias and arthritis and breast cancer.
NIH-funded research has also had a major impact on the lives of those
suffering from multiple sclerosis. MS is a painful, painful disease
that often strikes young women with children. Thanks to NIH research,
drugs have been developed that are now in the marketplace that mean MS
patients now live longer and have higher quality lives.
Since 1970, over 150 new FDA-approved drugs and vaccines or new
indications for existing drugs have been discovered in university
laboratories, most funded by NIH. And millions of Americans are hoping
that somewhere, just over the horizon, there will be new discoveries
and new breakthroughs leading to more effective treatments
[[Page H7883]]
for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS, autism, bacteria, ADHA,
schizophrenia, depression and much more.
{time} 1520
But treating these and other diseases will depend on discoveries yet
to be made. Discoveries of basic science. Discoveries that can only be
made with Federal funding and the work of agencies like the NIH. I
suspect that to some this might just sound like pie in the sky.
But just think back into our not too distant past. Think back to the
polio of the 1950s, to the children who were crippled and to the
patients in iron lungs. Think about 30 years ago, when almost all the
children who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma were not
expected to live more than 5 years. Think back to the time when AIDS
was the equivalent of a death sentence. Polio is now eradicated. The 5-
year survival rate for NHL is over 84 percent, and AIDS is treatable,
survivable.
This is all because of basic research, much of which was funded by
the NIH. Because of the basic research we have funded and made
possible. Because of our past investments in our Nation's future. The
Founding Fathers had the wisdom and the foresight to write into the
Constitution a role for the Federal Government in promoting the
progress of science and useful arts. If we are to remain competitive in
the global economy, if we hope to remain a leader in biotechnology, if
we hope to continue to advance the world's understanding and treatment
of diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease, we must continue to
invest in the basic research and in the dedicated young scientists who
make it all possible.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________