Call to action: Defending the NIH, the NSF and the foundation of American science — a Guest Commentary

There is an assault on the foundation of U.S. science: Silence is not an option

Whether you consider yourself a patient advocate, investor, innovator, health provider or payer of healthcare services, now is the time to stand up for the vital work of the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in making the U.S. the global leader in biopharma research. Surprisingly, few in the biotechnology community have spoken out in the defense of these institutions. 

We bring different experiences to this call: as a scleroderma patient, chairman of the Scleroderma Research Foundation and co-founder of MPM Capital; as executive director of No Patient Left Behind; and as founder and managing partner of RA Capital. We have dedicated decades to the pursuit of medicines. But we regret that taking a vocal stand for the NIH and NSF seems to be a rarity among our colleagues in the biotech community. And so we are writing to ask, in the strongest terms, that our community pull together and stand together.

We should all be deeply concerned. The recent actions of the new administration — arbitrarily restricting scientists' ability to speak and travel, stalling the dispersal of previously awarded NIH and NSF funds — are more than bureaucratic disruptions. They are an assault on the foundation of biomedical and technological progress. Merit-based, government-supported research and training by the NSF, NIH, and DOE has created — and continues to power — the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S.  The work funded both inside and outside by these institutions fuels an industry that has emerged as a strategic national asset and critical pillar of the U.S. economy, as well the engine driving healthcare forward.

Accordingly, concerns about the intervention are not a matter of politics. They are about national and ultimately global health; about American economic strength; competitiveness with our trading rivals;  and about our collective future. Our silence implies tacit acceptance. This is the wrong precedent to set as we enter a new administration that has shown a willingness to disrupt the use of funds already allocated for peer-reviewed scientific pursuits.

Scientific research thrives on stability, transparency and long-term commitment. The treatments and technologies we take for granted today — vaccines, cancer therapies, genomic medicine — exist because of decades of bipartisan support for peer-reviewed research. Of course, research progress is not linear but that is the nature of scientific advance. Of course, it is appropriate to evaluate how organizations function and whether improvements at the NIH and NSF and other funding agencies can be made. However, cutting off or delaying funding of projects already approved, imposing external politically driven interference, and sidelining scientists threatens to stall vital projects, waste resources, and, ultimately, cost lives.

We find ourselves at a crossroads. If we do not decisively defend this system that has been carefully built, the damage to our research ecosystem could be profound and lasting. As Mary Lasker said, “If you think research is expensive, try disease.”

It is not a convincing argument to assume that the current directives are simply oversteps or missteps that are in the process of being corrected. Irreparable damage is a real possibility. Hopefully, strong and thoughtful policymakers will have an opportunity to make a difference in the near future, even in an environment where there is continued pressure from other vectors. While it may seem like the safe option to hold out for that outcome, failure to come to the defense of the national treasures of the NIH and the NSF right now is its own kind of risk-taking.

This is a moment for unity across the biotechnology community — foundation leaders, industry executives, researchers, entrepreneurs and advocates. We must collectively and forcefully assert that independent, peer-reviewed science remain the standard; that this is the only path to achieve fundamental advances in national and ultimately global health; and that it is critical to American economic strength.  

To all of our colleagues, please join us in standing up for the NIH and NSF and calling for the return of established scientific review pathways. Pressing for letters from major academic and industry associations that we could all sign onto would be a good start.

You can sign onto this letter here.

________

Luke Evnin is chairman of the Scleroderma Research Foundation and co-founder and managing director of MPM Capital. Peter Rubin is executive director of non-profit organization No Patient Left Behind. Peter Kolchinsky is co-founder and managing partner of RA Capital Management.

Signed commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of BioCentury.