 |
Marchase took some time to discuss his hopes, goals, and concerns for the doubtlessly eventful next twelve months in FASEB's top spot with The Scientist.
The Scientist - Tell me about your goals leading up to the November presidential election as a science advocacy group, and how those will change after the election, regardless of who's elected.
Richard Marchase - Between now and November, our primary goal will be to approach both political parties and attempt to reestablish scientific funding and a respect for science as important parts of their platforms. We've already submitted testimony to both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party that we hope to get included in the platforms. We are participating with various groups that are seeking direct contact with the leadership of the two campaigns to make sure that we do get our message across. We would love to have an increase in funding for the National Science Foundation and [the National Institutes of Health] become something that both of these candidates were proud to be bringing forward in their public statements.
Once the candidate is chosen, then our focus will shift, and again I think working with our allies, we will try to really influence, during the transition period, the importance that science takes on within the new administration. We would really love to see a science advisor who had the ear of the President. We want to have, in the transition plan, the idea that an increase in funding for science and the scientific agencies - such as NIH, NSF, and others - is something that they see as a priority going forward.
TS - How do we move the discussion beyond just, 'We need more money?'
RM - We've been working closely with several other groups - the [American Association of Medical Colleges], Research!America, the American Association of Universities - to try to determine what kinds of messages work best for various audiences, because we do want to get to that point where we're actually doing something more than asking for more money for money's sake. We think we find the most resonance when we really [stress] the opportunities that are available to us if we increase our investment in scientific research, the kinds of cures and treatments for disease that will stem from an increased investment, and how unfortunate it would be if we allow the progress that we have made in the past decade, let's say, to begin to stall.
TS - If I'm a researcher that studies questions even less applied than looking at a specific infectious disease or a specific compound's effect on particular disorder?If I'm looking at, for example, how one protein behaves in a cell membrane, how do you make that case for my research?
RM - One of the things that FASEB has been doing for the last several years now is putting out these "Breakthroughs [in Bioscience]." While we're very proud of the way that certain diseases have been treated, our primary focus remains the basic science that underlies all of these treatments. One of the messages that's a little difficult to get across sometimes, but that we feel is absolutely critical, is the idea that targeted science at a particular disease is not always, certainly not the only way to go about finding cures. The scientist that you speak of is very very likely to end up with discoveries that are going to be exploited in ways that are not even thought about when that person even writes his grant application. We try very hard to make sure that the most basic kinds of research are included in the NIH portfolio, and we're very aware of assuring that the linkages between elementary, basic science and diseases is part of the understanding that we're trying to give to Congressional delegations.
TS - You've said that you wanted to focus not only on the state of science funding, but on other issues such as conflicts of interest and biosecurity that touch on the administration of research funding. Which of those do you consider to be most important in the coming year?
RM - I'd predict that the conflict of interest issues are going to continue to grow in importance. The Senate is concerned. There is certainly criticism now of the NIH that, while they have tightened the reigns on the internal community, they know very little about what's going on in their external fundees. FASEB has been one of the leaders in trying to get a toolkit out that will help institutions and individuals deal with this concept. There's this balance that we try to strike between appreciating the need for some accountability and [ensuring] that that is done in a way where the scientist is [as] unimpeded by some of these regulations as is reasonable.
TS - So do you see that situation as being unbalanced at this point?
RM - I think that there are times when some of the regulatory bodies act without necessarily having completely thought about what the implications are to the way science is actually done. And there are times where the gain in accountability would pale in comparison to the workload that it puts on scientists.
TS - With regard to the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections, what's the worst case scenario from where you stand as the head of FASEB?
RM - The worst case scenario, I suppose, would involve a real continuing pressure on the United States budget that would make everyone very hesitant to be investing in anything, let alone science. And science would continue to sort of muddle along without much of an increase. I don't see that as happening at all. I think that we are going to be able to have leaders that will understand the importance of this investment. There really is a rekindling of interest in seeing science funding increased.
