|
|
|
© 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."