Personalized Meddling

Frankie Trull wants to sell your company to Congress.


© Stephen Voss

In the frigid weeks of the US Congressional winter recess, the halls of government buildings around Capitol Hill are empty and quiet. But things are far from quiet for Frankie Trull, a biotechnology lobbyist. With the changing of the Congressional guard following the 2008 election comes a changing of the staff members that liaise with Trull's Washington, DC-based boutique firm, Policy Directions. This means a whole new set of people she has to convince of the merits of biotech.

In many ways, "lobbyist" has become something of a bad word, thanks to plenty of negative media coverage. It is not something one would immediately associate with biotech. Pharma, certainly so—together, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies doled out at least $70 million in 2008 alone on lobbying on the Hill.

But biotech trade organizations like the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) are also powerful lobbyists on behalf of their member companies. And even smaller companies may be getting the hint that government relations should be part of their public relations strategies. Since 2001, BayBio, a Northern California biotech trade association that lobbies, has seen membership grow by at least 20% per year, according to Matt Gardner, president and CEO. Of the 450 current member companies, the average company is made up of fewer than 60 employees. "What we're seeing is an increasing number of early-stage companies participating in the process as they realize that the government is likely to be supportive, but might not be sure how to prioritize support mechanisms," says Gardner.

"Companies that don't hire [lobbyists] wonder why their competitors are getting all the money." —Frankie Trull

Even under normal circumstances, for individual biotech companies dealing with the complicated processes of bringing new compounds and products through trials, FDA approvals, and regulatory assessments, lobbyists are the one link between lab and lawmaker. With a better understanding of the ins and outs of the process, lawmakers are more likely to support bills that encourage, rather than stifle, biotech research and development.

"The biotech industry deals with an ongoing basic education challenge: that our industry is not well-understood," says Gardner. "The science behind biotech is not well understood—the process of going through basic research to clinical trials to successfully delivering a product to patients worldwide. It's incredibly complicated, it takes a long time, and we have to show that process to elected leaders."

In 2000, Trull's firm was engaged by a New Jersey biotech called Anthra (which has since been sold and disbanded) that had a compound designed to treat bladder cancer which had been voted against, by a count of 14-0, by an FDA advisory panel. Trull's team determined that not one member of the advisory panel had expertise in the subject matter. They took the issue to a New Jersey member of Congress, who then brought up the issue with the FDA. The federal agency agreed with the criticism, and added a knowledgeable person to the panel. The product was reconsidered and approved for market. Often, "technology gets ahead of the regulatory pathways," says Trull. "The FDA is always confronted with these kinds of challenges, and this is where lobbying really matters," she adds.


Leaning on lobbyists

During the first weeks of 2009, Trull's seven-person lobbying team has been busy compiling analysis reports for each of Policy Directions' 25 or so current biotech and biomedical research clients, strategizing on how to confront bills and issues throughout the upcoming Congressional calendar year. Trull is expecting her year to be taken up by issues including legislation on genetically modified foods, federal drug reimbursement and generics policies, and the new administration's decision regarding stem cell research.

In an average week, Trull spends most of her days on the Hill, meeting with staff members in the health, agriculture, and energy committees. But as she clears security through the Congressional buildings, greeting by name the security guards and staff members passing by, her chic pantsuit and dark Jackie Onassis sunglasses give her the air of a well-connected socialite rather than hardnosed lobbyist.

"A lobbyist opens doors to meet the right people and establish the right relationships," says a prominent Congressional staff member who often deals with issues relating to biotech, and who asked to remain anonymous since he was violating procedure by speaking to a member of the press. Lobbyists provide information to staffers, he adds, who have more time than the representatives themselves to learn how legislation is likely to affect the research sector. "My job is to get into the minutia" of scientific issues and educate the committee members, he says. "When I have a question and I want a straight answer, I often call up a lobbyist that I trust."

Once hired, lobbyists meet with the company's local Congressional representative, and other representatives who might be sympathetic to the company's cause. They meet with staffers and often help them write legislation that supports the company's research, whether in support of transgenic plants or certain research technology; they can bring in CEOs to testify in relevant policy hearings; they can also keep track of patent laws. "These CEOs understand that if anything happens to their patents they're in deep trouble," says Jeffrey Taylor, a biotech lobbyist and senior vice president of International Government Relations, a lobbying group in Washington, DC.

Lobbyists can also find extra cash for biotechs in unlikely places. The Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Veterans Affairs all offer grants that might apply to biotech research. Congress designates how much money goes to each agency, and can recommend how much money to designate to individual projects. "Companies that don't hire [lobbyists] wonder why their competitors are getting all the money," says Trull.

Above all, lobbyists keep your cause in the lawmaker's ear. "All of this is to put you on the radar screen just in case you have to ask member of congress to intercede," says Taylor.

Several bills that Trull fought hard for hang framed on the walls of her Connecticut Avenue office. She got her first taste of lobbying when in the late 1970s she worked for Tufts University president Jean Mayer, garnering support from six New England governors and Congressional members to get state and federal funding to establish the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in 1978. Soon after, Trull started the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), an organization that advocates the responsible use of animals in biomedical research. She still presides over and lobbies for FBR as president of another policy group, the National Association for Biomedical Research. FBR's most recent slogan, "Animal research saves animals, too," graced billboards along the Pennsylvania turnpike with a picture of none other than Trull's cat, Pookie.


Why thump?

Trull knows which Congress members have a special interest in breast cancer. She knows who has osteoporosis, or whose child has juvenile diabetes. All this information helps her target which representatives will be most sympathetic to her client's needs and goals. But she also knows which representatives will be miffed if they see her talking to someone on the other side of the aisle. In many ways it's not unlike navigating a mire of high school cliques. "[The] reason to hire Washington representation is because [biotechs] need someone to interpret what the hell's going on." Joining a large trade association like BIO or BayBio can help, says Trull, but those organizations represent thousands of biotech companies at a very broad level.

Of course, for start-ups operating solely on venture capital money, investing the baseline average of $10,000 a month to retain a lobbying firm is hard to justify, says Taylor. But with drastic changes in Congressional seats in the last election, the need may be greatest. "In the upcoming 111th Congress, it will be a very tough road for biotech companies," says Trull. "This is not to say that biotechs should run for cover, but they need to get in there and be heard early, and be heard often."



Advertisement


 

Rate this article

Rating: 2.92/5 (26 votes )





Trull an advocate for "responsible use of animals"?
by Alka Chandna

[Comment posted 2009-03-17 12:19:42]
Given that the Foundation for Biomedical Research?s (FBR) entire reason for existence is to promote the use of animals in experimentation, it is no surprise to read that lobbyist and FBR founder Frankie Trull champions the practice. However, it is a stretch for The Scientist to classify FBR?a trade group for animal experimenters, pharmaceutical companies and laboratory suppliers?as advocating ?the responsible use of animals? in experimentation when its track record suggests otherwise.

Trull has opposed legislation that would extend even the most minimal protections to mice, rats and birds in laboratories, who make up at least 97% (more than 100 million) of the animals confined and killed in laboratories and who are currently excluded from any U.S. animal welfare laws. This translates to demonstrated suffering. A recent literature review determined that only 20 percent of rats and mice used in painful and invasive procedures?such as thoracotomies, laparotomies, craniotomies, skin incisions, burn studies and orthopedic studies?received postoperative analgesics. Even when allowing for the use of anesthetic agents with analgesic properties, it was estimated that 50 to 60 percent of animals received no pain relief. Withholding pain relief constitutes neither humane nor responsible use of animals.

Following PETA?s 11-month investigation inside contract testing laboratory Covance, Trull vociferously defended the company?s illegal practices?even though PETA?s video footage showed workers hitting monkeys, choking them, and slamming them against cage doors. Sick and injured monkeys were deprived veterinary care and extremely sick monkeys were not humanely euthanized but were allowed to suffer in their cages. In the wake of PETA?s investigation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted its own investigation and cited and fined Covance for egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

While PETA is unapologetic in its abolitionist position on the use of animals in experimentation, we recognize that it is possible to minimize the pain, discomfort, and distress suffered by animals in laboratories. Trull?s cheerleading for all and any use of animals in laboratories?no matter how pointless, redundant, or cruel?hampers earnest efforts to improve the welfare of animals and undermines public faith in a system that is so wholly broken.

Alka Chandna, Ph.D.
Laboratory Oversight Specialist
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals



Perception & Understanding
by Joan Burkholder

[Comment posted 2009-03-17 07:57:25]
The word lobbyist may currently be the "L" word; but, how does Congress know or even think about the needs of Research and Researchers unless they are made aware of the issues. Typically scientists are so busy doing their "own thing" they forget that funding for their work comes from the world outside. Someone needs to provide this information to the appropriate sources. If researchers are busy promoting the research they wish or need to do to advance the wold and the well-being of people everywhere they have less time to do research. So why not utilize spokes-persons to do it for them?



Is not only a problem of education
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2009-03-16 12:36:55]
If biotech lobbyists have bad reputation is not only because the public at large doesn't understand well the science behind biotechnology, many times the fault is on the biotech research scientists themselves, who, at least in Italy, often do not hesitate to go on TV talking about matters beyond their expertise, to reassure, for instance, the public on GMOs' safety, while their expertise was limited on how to make them, and no more. In any case, my opinion is that lobbying is always bad, as in some cases the impression is things (products) go on just because of the right connections rather than because of merit. Of course, being Italy one of the most corrupt countries in the world the problems of lobbying here are much more serious, I do not think, however, the USA or the UK are immune to the problems either.






Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist