[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[EXTEN]
[Page 5370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FEDERAL MONEY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 23, 1999

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my 
colleagues a recent Op-Ed written by Dr. Arthur H. Rubenstein about the 
benefits federal money has produced for medical research. Dr. 
Rubenstein is the Dean of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York 
City, one of New York City's and the country's premiere teaching 
hospitals.

More Aid Means More Responsibility--Federal Money Puts Medical Research 
                    on the Threshold of a Golden Age

                       (By Arthur H. Rubenstein)

       New York.--Congress has now approved billions of dollars in 
     research money to complete the elements of what could be the 
     Golden Age of Medical Research.
       We now have scientific excellence, outstanding technology, 
     public support and greatly increased funding aligned to make 
     possible a quantum leap forward in our search for better 
     treatments, prevention and hopefully cures of some of the 
     most dreaded diseases on earth.
       But as we celebrate this unique opportunity, scientists and 
     physician researchers must understand that with it comes a 
     new, and perhaps higher, level of responsibility. If we 
     ignore this responsibility, we risk losing this newly won 
     support.
       A combination of forces has brought us to this unique 
     opportunity.
       The media continues to follow the rapid pace of scientific 
     breakthroughs and gives medical news front page status.
       The public, particularly patients and their families, 
     clamor for life saving and life prolonging treatments.
       In addition, many recent discoveries are now being applied 
     in actual practice. Leading lawmakers in Congress took 
     particular notice of these forces during the last 
     congressional session. Realizing that a big boost in funding 
     could capitalize on the intensifying scientific knowledge of 
     the past decade, thoughtful lawmakers brought about a $2 
     billion increase in the NIH budget.
       As a physician and a Dean of a major medical school, I am 
     elated over this opportunity. During my lifetime, basic 
     science has advanced and accelerated so rapidly that we are 
     on the verge of unprecedented discoveries. Just 45 years 
     after the discovery of the structure of DNA, we are on the 
     road to examining how tens of thousands of genes function.
       That will be the key to understanding how many diseases 
     occur. And that is the shaft of light that can lead us to 
     curing or controlling the disease.
       We will look back on these years with the same awe as was 
     felt for the wondrous age after Newton discovered the Laws of 
     Motion or Einstein discovered the Laws of Relativity.
       However, if I put my own scientific excitement to the side 
     for a moment and focus on my role as the leader of an entity 
     which depends heavily on research funding, I must also offer 
     a cautious warning about this great rush forward.
       All over the country, in clinical and research 
     laboratories, the scramble is on to garner a share of this 
     new funding. This competition is healthy and will lead to 
     better science. My own school will compete as hard as the 
     next.
       The National Institutes of Health (NIH), though, faces a 
     formidable challenge to allocate money to research 
     laboratories. Clearly, the funds must be spent in a wise and 
     responsible manner.
       But which scientists working on what diseases will get an 
     infusion of money to throw their research into high gear or 
     get it off the ground? How much ``politics'' must be 
     considered? What markers will be laid out to show if the 
     money was wasted or well spent? I don't envy the NIH at all!
       The Institute of Medicine recommends the public be given a 
     strong say in this process and that a public advisory board 
     be created. Those are excellent and appropriate ideas.
       The funding decisions must not be solely made in meetings 
     amongst administrators and scientists.
       To maintain public support, the scientific community must 
     make the public a greater part of the discussion of what 
     could be literally life and death decisions for generations 
     to come.
       But we, as scientists and leaders of the academic 
     community, must also be mindful that our individual and 
     collective actions are appropriately facing a higher level of 
     scrutiny than ever before. We must embrace this examination, 
     respond appropriately, or else face great peril.
       We have an obligation to find ways to share our work with 
     the lay public, to do our best to make it intelligible to non 
     scientists. We have an obligation to be cautious with our 
     pronouncements of progress.
       As exciting as incremental progress is to the scientist, 
     its reality, that it is progress but not yet a cure, can be 
     exceptionally cruel to the human being looking for solace. We 
     have an obligation to shun fleeting fame when it is 
     premature, and fortune when its potential jeopardizes the 
     credibility of our work.
       Science is tantalizingly close to so many discoveries! To 
     me, it is simply breathtaking to even begin to comprehend 
     that within five to ten years we may--I underscore ``may''--
     have the understanding to cure or prevent various infectious 
     diseases, mental illnesses, birth defects, and would be 
     killers like heart disease, cancer, AIDS, and diabetes.
       If the medical and research communities are perceived as 
     not using public funding wisely or let false optimism blind 
     us to the often unpredictable nature of scientific 
     exploration, we will have failed in a monumental and tragic 
     manner.
       Besides the discoveries lost or delayed, and the lives that 
     would be affected, there could be a public backlash against 
     those who failed to act responsibly.
       The Golden Age of Medical Research then would be replaced 
     by an era of suspicion and skepticism about science's ability 
     to improve life.

     

                          ____________________