Please see the extended text for some information I gathered this morning regarding the candidates plans and how they may relate to the leading industry in our area. Conventional wisdom in pharmaceuticals, for what its worth, has favored Republicans in past elections. Obviously, this gamble has not paid off so well under the Bush regime. However, the industry as a whole has been shifting support toward the Democratic side since 2006, and that shift has become more pronounced this election year. As I have been comparing and learning about this issue, I give Barrack the win in this category. I am no expert in this arena, but I do think that those who have simply voted Republican in the name of our town's industry in the past should revisit this issue for themselves.
Yes We Can.
Some drug manufacturers are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.31 The Obama-Biden plan will work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. Their plan will work to increase use of generic drugs in the new public plan, Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP and prohibit large
drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.
The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe
Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality.
RESEARCH. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
OBAMA: Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature, has been an essential feature of American life for more than 50 years. Although the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return, and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation's future.
Yet today, we are clearly underinvesting in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of gross domestic product for decades, and after a period of growth of the life sciences, the National Institutes of Health's budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in 10 proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science.
This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
MCCAIN: With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. I have supported significant increases in basic research at NSF. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science on the basis of quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.
Peter Agre (2003)Sidney Altman (1989)Paul Berg (1980)Robert F. Curl (1996)Johann Diesenhofer (1988)John B. Fenn (2002)Walter Gilbert (1980)Robert H. Grubbs (2005)Dudley Herschbach (1986)Roald Hoffmann (1981)Walter Kohn (1998)Roger Kornberg (2006)Sherwood Rowland (1995)Richard R. Schrock (2005)IN AN OPEN LETTER to the American people, 62 Nobel Prize winners announced their support for the Democratic candidate for U.S. president, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Of the signers, 14 are Chemistry Nobel Laureates.
"We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness," the Sept. 25 letter said. The signers state that they support Obama's plans for new initiatives in education and training, expanding research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining science advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research.
The letter was announced in a conference call led by three Nobel Prize winners: Harold E. Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Peter C. Agre, director of the Malaria Research Institute at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and H. Robert Horvitz, a professor of biology at MIT. Varmus is chairman of the Obama science advisory committee.
The letter criticized the current Administration for engendering a science advisory process "distorted by political considerations."
"We wanted the public to be aware of the strong support Sen. Obama enjoys among the nation's leading scientists and of our conviction that he understands the connection between a vibrant research effort and the country's economic competitiveness," Varmus said.
In an interview with C&EN, Agre said the letter shows how scientists are coming together in terms of their views on the candidates. "Obama clearly has a much more friendly platform toward science and science education," he said.
Agre also disclosed that he has been an informal adviser to the Obama campaign, but, "for the record," he added, if Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had "asked for my advice, I would have done it for him also."
The same day the letter was released, the Obama campaign announced its plan for U.S. science and innovation. The plan's five main points are to restore integrity in U.S. science policy, double the federal investment in basic research, commit to science education, encourage U.S. innovation, and address the "grand challenges" of the 21st century, such as affordable clean energy, healthier lives, and strengthened homeland security.
The McCain campaign did not respond to requests for comments regarding the scientists' letter as C&EN went to press. C&EN covers Obama's and McCain's answers to science policy questions on page 27.
Comments are closed for this post.
