JAMA news releases are made available to the public after 3 pm US Central time on the first 4 Tuesdays of each month. The Archives Journals news releases are made available to the public after 3 pm Central time on Mondays. We also provide a list of previous news releases.
THIS WEEK'S CONTENT
JAMA NEWS RELEASES
(Embargoed for Early Release: 10 a.m. ET, Tuesday, September 20, 2005)
JAMA NEWS RELEASES—THEME ISSUE ON MEDICAL RESEARCH
FUNDING FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH DOUBLES IN LAST DECADE
ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS FACE MULTIPLE CHALLENGES FOR CONDUCTING MEDICAL RESEARCH
AMERICANS THINK COMMITMENT TO HEALTH RESEARCH SHOULD BE STRONGER
NEW PROGRAMS RESTORE INTEREST IN PHYSICIAN-SCIENTIST RESEARCH CAREERS
JAMA REPORT (VIDEO NEWS RELEASE SCRIPT)
VIDEO: Windows Media | Quicktime
INVESTMENT IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH DOUBLED OVER TEN YEARS
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE NEWS RELEASES IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. JOURNAL ATTRIBUTION IS REQUIRED.
TV Note: This week's JAMA video news release is on the funding of biomedical research. The release will be fed Tuesday, September 20, from 9:00 - 9:30 a.m. ET on Intelsat America 6 (formerly Telstar 6), Transponder 11 (C-Band) and from 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. ET on Intelsat America 6, Transponder 11 (C-Band). For more information, call 312/464-JAMA (5262).
JOURNALISTS CAN NOW ACCESS EMBARGOED JAMA/ARCHIVES STUDIES ONLINE
Go to www.jamamedia.org for more information and to apply for access.
Save the Dates:
September 16-18, Chicago
JAMA and BMJ will host the 5th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. New research will be released on topics including clinical trial registries, conflict of interest, scientific misconduct, bias in funding and sponsorship, and reporting clinical trials. For more information, go to www.jama-peer.org. To register, go to www.jamamedia.org and click on Events; email mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org; or call 312-464-JAMA (5262).
September 20, New York
JAMA will hold a media briefing on Medical Research - State of the Science, at Rockefeller University in New York on Tuesday, September 20, from 9:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. Additional information and a program is included at the end of this email. To register, go to www.jamamedia.org and click on Events; email mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org; or call 312-464-JAMA (5262).
Please Note: The FOR THE MEDIA Web site now has a search feature to enable media to find previous JAMA/Archives news releases on specific medical topics. This search feature link is located on the home page at www.jamamedia.org
Embargoed for Early Release: 10 a.m. ET, Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Media Advisory: To contact Hamilton Moses III, M.D., call 434-984-2016.
FUNDING FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH DOUBLES IN LAST DECADE
NEW YORK—From 1994 to 2003, total funding for biomedical research in the U.S. doubled to $94.3 billion, with industry providing 57 percent of the funding and the National Institutes of Health providing 28 percent, according to a study in the September 21 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical research.
Lead author Hamilton Moses III, M.D., of the Alerion Institute, North Garden, Va., presented the findings of the study today at a JAMA media briefing on medical research.
Few comprehensive analyses of the sources of financial support of biomedical research and uses of these funds have been available, according to background information in the article. This results in inadequate information on which to base investment decisions and can create a barrier to judging the value of research to society. Previous articles have examined specific sectors, but few have done so comprehensively.
Dr. Moses and colleagues conducted a study to determine the level and trend from 1994 to 2004 of basic, translational (the application of knowledge of basic science research to clinical care), and clinical U.S. biomedical research support from the major sponsors of this research: (1) federal government, (2) state and local governments, (3) private not-for-profit entities including foundations, and (4) industry. The researchers compiled publicly available data for federal, state, and local governments; foundations; charities; universities; and industry. Proprietary (by subscription but openly available) databases were used to supplement public sources.
The researchers found that biomedical research funding increased from $37.1 billion in 1994 to $94.3 billion in 2003 and doubled when adjusted for inflation. Principal research sponsors in 2003 were industry (57 percent) and the National Institutes of Health (28 percent). Relative proportions from all public and private sources did not change. Industry sponsorship of clinical trials increased from $4.0 to $14.2 billion (in real terms) while federal proportions devoted to basic and applied research were unchanged.
The United States spent an estimated 5.6 percent of its total health expenditures on biomedical research, more than any other country, but less than 0.1 percent for health services research. From an economic perspective, biotechnology and medical device companies were most productive, as measured by new diagnostic and therapeutic devices per dollar of research and development cost. Productivity declined for new pharmaceuticals.
The NIH is by far the largest federal funder of biomedical research. Adjusted for inflation, NIH obligations nearly doubled (in 2003 dollars) from $13.4 billion in 1994 to $26.4 billion in 2003. Private support for biomedical research, adjusted for inflation, increased 36 percent from $1.8 billion in 1994 to $2.5 billion in 2003 (in 2003 dollars). Private support for biomedical research comes primarily from foundations, voluntary health organizations, and the free-standing research institutes.
Industry funding from pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device firms increased 102 percent from $26.8 billion in 1994 to an inflation-adjusted $54.1 billion in 2003 (in 2003 dollars). The growth rate (inflation adjusted) for the medical device sector (264 percent) exceeded that for either the pharmaceutical (89 percent) or biotechnology (98 percent) sectors. The proportion of biomedical research support coming from industry sources remained relatively constant and was 56 percent for 1994 and 58 percent for 2003.
The federal government and foundations spent $1.4 billion on health policy and health services research in 2002. Federal funding for health services research came primarily from the NIH ($787 million in fiscal year 2002) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ($299 million in fiscal year 2002). The sum of federal and foundation spending for health services research in 2002 was an estimated 1.5 percent of biomedical research funding.
"The doubling over a decade of total spending by U.S. public and private research sponsors in real, inflation-adjusted, terms should be reassuring to those who fear that financial sponsorship for research is not paralleling scientific opportunity. It is also reassuring that spending on health and biomedical science research by companies and government is not following reductions in research and development in other industries or reduced support for other areas of science. By comparison, the low proportion of spending on health services research is especially notable, since it is the main tool available to evaluate the clinical benefit of technology," the authors write.
"Barriers to the discovery of new drugs have received much attention over the past decade. Despite the doubling of biomedical research funding and the shift toward clinical research by pharmaceutical companies, the number of new molecular entities approved by the FDA has fallen. For example, from 1994 to 1997, the number of new molecular entities approved averaged 35.5 per year. From 2001 to 2004, the number of new molecular entities averaged 23.3 per year. As a consequence, pharmaceutical productivity decreased over the last 10 years, and it is lagging that of the biotechnology and device sectors," the researchers write.
"We believe a major factor in decreasing productivity stems from pharmaceutical companies' frequent determination that compounds approvable from a regulatory standpoint are not worth bringing to the market because the intensity of competition is so high that it is not worth challenging existing drugs that are safe and effective. This highlights the need to invest in clinical areas with few effective treatments and for which novel mechanisms or entirely new classes of drugs are possible. The willingness of biotechnology companies to do this may, in part, account for their greater relative productivity."
"For all sponsors, the challenge is patience. Biomedical research is an inherently high risk and lengthy process. It would be helpful to remind those making financial decisions that the promise of earlier advances in the basic understanding of physiology in the 1920s and 1930s, or of biochemistry and microbiology in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, took decades to unfold."
"Enhancing research productivity and evaluation of benefit are pressing challenges, requiring (1) more effective translation of basic scientific knowledge to clinical application; (2) critical appraisal of rapidly moving scientific areas to guide investment where clinical need is greatest, not only where commercial opportunity is currently perceived; and (3) more specific information about sources and uses of research funds than is generally available to allow informed investment decisions. Responsibility falls on industry, government, and foundations to bring these changes about with a longer-term view of research value," the authors conclude.
(JAMA. 2005;294:1333-1342. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
Editor's Note: For funding/support and financial disclosure information, please see the JAMA article.
For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org.
Go back to the top.
Embargoed for Early Release: 10 a.m. ET, Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Media Advisory: To contact Jordan J. Cohen, M.D., call 202-828-0975.
ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS FACE MULTIPLE CHALLENGES FOR CONDUCTING MEDICAL RESEARCH
NEW YORK—To maintain their effectiveness for conducting medical research, academic medical centers must face critical issues such as constrained funding sources, scientific integrity, recruiting physician-scientists, and the increasing costs of research, according to an article in the September 21 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical research.
Lead author Jordan J. Cohen, M.D., of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Washington, D.C., presented the article today at a JAMA media briefing on medical research.
Dr. Cohen and co-author Elisa K. Siegel, A.B., of the AAMC, examined the status of medical research at academic medical centers.
"The present era offers more promise for progress in medical research than ever before. Contemporary science has deciphered the human genome, discovered some of the potential of stem cells, and unleashed the power of information technologies. Any one of these three historic scientific achievements would have the potential to effect a fundamental transformation in medicine; their confluence has created unprecedented opportunity for spectacular breakthroughs in human health."
The authors write that despite this promise for progress, many challenges await medical research:
- The need to manage high (and often unreasonable) public expectations for lifesaving discoveries.
- The need to maintain public trust despite the suspicions aroused by financial conflicts of interest.
- The need to sustain the cultural norms of academe while partnering with industry to promote technology transfer.
- The obstacles to recruiting and retaining physician-scientists to pursue translational research.
- The widening gap between the costs of research and available funding sources.
- The unfunded mandates with which investigators and institutions must comply.
- The need to transform an academic reward structure built to encourage individual scientists to pursue their own ideas into one that fosters teams of collaborating investigators to pursue "big science".
PROMOTING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
"Having raised expectations with tantalizing promises of scientific breakthroughs, the research community has an obligation to help the public understand the process of medical research and the often uneven and incremental pace of progress that characterizes most medical discoveries," the authors write. "Academic medical centers, as sources of much of the advances in medicine, have a special role to play in managing the public's expectations and can do so by ensuring that public communications about their research developments are tempered with realistic assessments of their practical impact."
MANAGING FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Financial conflicts of interest on the part of investigators and their institutions have the potential both to undermine the integrity of the scientific process and to compromise the safe conduct of human research. "According to a 2004 AAMC survey, the academic medicine community has made substantial progress in moving beyond the minimum requirements prescribed by federal regulations to strengthen the safeguards against conflicts of interest in human research. However, this survey also revealed that the academic medicine community still has more work to do to establish a uniformly robust set of policies and procedures. ...Sustaining public trust in the medical research enterprise will, at minimum, require continued efforts to identify and address ways to improve the protection of human research subjects and to buttress the management of financial conflicts of interest."
MAINTAINING ACADEMIC VALUES
According to the authors, examples of the potentially damaging effects of academic-industry relationships include real or perceived pressures to relax scientific standards, inducements to become advocates (or shills) for industry, suppression of nonoptimal research results, incomplete or misleading descriptions and interpretations of trial results, and premature termination of clinical trials. "Academic medical centers and their industry partners must be willing to adopt more uniform, more robust, and more transparent standards governing their relationships if the mutual benefits of those relationships are to be sustained."
SUSTAINING RESEARCH FUNDING
In recent years, the growth of federal funding for medical research has decreased, with the NIH's budget growing by less than the rate of inflation. Compounding this restrictive fiscal climate are the increasing costs of modern science and of complying with the ever-increasing burden of government regulations. "The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Office of Management and Budget have undertaken a cross-agency initiative to identify more efficient business models and to streamline agency requirements for federally sponsored research, giving rise to some hope that the federal government will at least partially restore the balance of responsibility that formerly characterized the historic federal-academic partnership in the country's research enterprise. If some relief is not forthcoming, some institutions may find it impossible to sustain their sponsored research programs."
"Academic medical centers face many difficult challenges in pursuing their research mission, and the interconnectedness of those challenges magnifies the difficulty. The ability to nurture and sustain a vibrant clinical research workforce in the future is heavily dependent on the ability to shift the academic culture and reward system away from the traditional paradigm focused on the individual investigator in favor of one that is more collaborative, team-based, and interdisciplinary," the authors write.
"The ability to sustain financial support for medical research in the face of constrained federal and state budgets is heavily dependent on managing unrealistic public expectations and on maintaining public trust. The ability to benefit optimally from the growing relationships with industry is heavily dependent on remaining true to fundamental academic values, including the safety of human subjects research, the integrity of the scientific process, and the free exchange of research results. The degree to which medical schools and teaching hospitals are successful in meeting these challenges will determine the degree to which the historic promise of modern medical science will be realized," the authors conclude.
(JAMA. 2005;294:1367-1372. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org.
Go back to the top.
Embargoed for Early Release: 10 a.m. ET, Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Media Advisory: To contact Mary Woolley, M.A., call Heather Jameson at 703-739-2577, ext. 20.
AMERICANS THINK COMMITMENT TO HEALTH RESEARCH SHOULD BE STRONGER
NEW YORK—Most Americans rate medical research as a high national priority and strongly support greater public and private funding, according to an article in the September 21 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical research. However, recent opinion surveys indicate that Americans also are increasingly dissatisfied with the nation's health care system and think the national commitment to health-related research should be higher.
Lead author Mary Woolley, M.A., of Research!America, Alexandria, Va., presented the findings of the article today at a JAMA media briefing on medical research.
Elected and appointed officials representing the public continuously shape policy affecting the conduct of health-related research and health care in the U.S., according to background information in the article. These officials pay close attention to issues that concern the health of the public. Medical researchers and funders of health-related research should be well informed of the public's attitudes toward research.
Mary Woolley, M.A., and Stacie M. Propst, Ph.D., of Research!America, Alexandria, Va., summarized 10 years of data gathered from national and state opinion surveys on public attitudes and perceptions about health care and health-related research. Data in the article were drawn from 70 state surveys and 18 national surveys commissioned by Research!America from 1998 through 2005. Most of the surveys had a sample size of 800 or 1,000 adults (range, 800 - 5,377). Participants were selected at random and surveyed by telephone interview.
In a 2005 poll, Americans ranked health care (28 percent), education (22 percent), and jobs (20 percent) as the most important domestic issues. That same year, the majority of interviewees (78 percent) said it was very important that the U.S. maintain global leadership in health-related research. More than half (55 percent) of Americans want more spent on research, and, most importantly, they are willing to pay for it.
The majority (67 percent) of Americans said they are willing to pay $1 more per week in taxes for additional medical research, an increase from 2004, when 46 percent said were willing to pay more for health research. When asked what type of research was more valuable-research to prevent disease or research to cure disease-nearly half (48 percent) said prevention research was more valuable.
Other Survey Results:
- Health care costs are a leading concern in terms of national priorities, with accelerating medical and health research rated as very important to 66 percent, somewhat important to 28 percent.
- 58 percent indicate that as the U.S. looks for ways to manage health care costs, the national commitment to health-related research should be higher.
- 60 percent of Americans say they do not believe the U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
- More than half (55 percent) of the public say they are currently dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country, compared with 44 percent who reported the same in 2000.
- Many Americans (66 percent) say the U.S. is spending too little on public health research, and 64 percent say at least twice as much should be spent.
- A majority of Americans (58 percent) favor embryonic stem cell research, while 34 percent strongly favor it. Of the 29 percent of people opposed to stem cell research, 57 percent said their position was based on religious objections.
- 56 percent of Americans do not believe an abstinence-only approach to teen sex education will prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies, while 39 percent believe it will.
"The understanding, support and engagement of the public are essential if the research enterprise is to continue to succeed. To ensure that success, stakeholders in research must commit to listening to the public and being responsive to their concerns. The concerns expressed by the public are to be expected in the conduct of research that seeks to chart the unknown. The research community should embrace every opportunity to engage the public in an effort to answer their questions and put a human face on research," the authors write. "The widespread public support for research and researchers is now, as it has long been, entirely consistent with public aspirations for better health and well-being, and for longer and more productive lives."
(JAMA. 2005;294:1380-1384. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org.
Go back to the top.
Embargoed for Early Release: 10 a.m. ET, Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Media Advisory: To contact Timothy J. Ley, M.D., call 314-362-8831. To contact Leon E. Rosenberg, M.D., call 609-258-5368.
NEW PROGRAMS RESTORE INTEREST IN PHYSICIAN-SCIENTIST RESEARCH CAREERS
NEW YORK—Recent initiatives appear to have created renewed interest for young physicians to pursue research careers, according to a study in the September 21 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical research.
Results of the study were presented today at a JAMA media briefing on medical research.
Physician-scientists, defined as individuals with a medical degree who perform medical research as their primary professional activity, have contributed much to the preeminent position of the U.S. in medical science, according to background information in the article. The unique perspective that physician-scientists bring to the medical research workforce is that their scientific questions arise at the bedside and in the clinic. Despite this perspective, the pipeline of physician-scientists has had a serious problem, first described more than a generation ago: the physician-scientist population in the U.S. is smaller and older than it was 25 years ago. These and other trends have led some observers to conclude that the physician-scientist is a threatened species. A variety of factors were thought to contribute to this problem, including increasing indebtedness of medical school graduates caused by rapidly rising medical school tuition costs.
Several National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored groups, private foundations, and national organizations called for new initiatives and award programs aimed at revitalizing the physician-scientist career path. These initiatives were begun between 1998 and 2002.
These initiatives included NIH career development awards for young physicians being trained to carry out clinical research, awards for established clinical investigators, awards for academic institutions with programs supporting clinical research training and infrastructure, and a series of competitive loan repayment programs (LRPs) for young physician-scientists with significant debt.
The private not-for-profit sector created new awards for young and established physician-scientists and an increasing number of research-intensive medical schools and hospitals (where most physician-scientists work) have constructed multifaceted programs aimed at encouraging medical students to become involved with research before and after receiving their M.D. degree and at protecting the research time of young physician-scientists during their junior faculty appointments.
Timothy J. Ley, M.D., of the Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, and Leon E. Rosenberg, M.D., of Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., conducted a study to attempt to define the effects that these budgetary and institutional initiatives have had on the physician-scientist career path. The authors determined trends using data obtained from the NIH, the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other sources.
The researchers found that the number of physician-scientists in the United States has been in a steady state for the past decade, but funded physician-scientists are significantly older than they were 2 decades ago. "However, the study of early career markers over the past 7 to 10 years has demonstrated increasing interest in research careers by medical students, steady growth of the M.D.-Ph.D. pool, and a new burst of activity in the 'late bloomer' pool of M.D.s (individuals who choose research careers in medical school or in residency training), fueled by loan repayment programs that were created by the NIH in 2002. Several recent trends for more established physician-scientists have also suggested improvement."
Concerning applications for NIH research project grants (RPGs), first-time M.D. applicants, whose numbers hovered at 750 to 800 between 1995 and 1999, have slowly increased recently, reaching a total of 995 in 2003. First-time RPG applicants with M.D.-Ph.D. degrees have steadily increased, from 133 in 1970 to 600 in 2003.
"New programs recently initiated by the NIH and private foundations are beginning to have a positive impact on the decisions of young physicians to pursue research careers. To maintain this trend, strong funding commitments will be required beyond the entry level. If these commitments are sustained, we are cautiously optimistic that they will result in an increase in the population of physician-scientists in the United States in the near future," the authors conclude.
(JAMA. 2005;294:1343-1351. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
Editor's Note: The Alan and Edith Wolff Chair provided support for Dr. Ley.
For More Information: Contact the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org.
Go back to the top.
MEDICAL RESEARCH—STATE OF THE SCIENCE
WHAT: A JAMA Theme Issue Media Briefing on Medical Research
WHEN: Tuesday, September 20, 9:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
WHERE: Rockefeller University, Founder's Hall, Welch Hall Reading Room, New York
JAMA authors will present findings on the current state of medical research, including:
- Survey results on what are the concerns and thoughts of Americans on health care in the U.S., what should be prioritized, and who should pay for it.
- The outlook for funding of biomedical research, the latest figures on trends in funding, who is paying for what, and why the decrease in development of new medications.
- What is being done to create new interest for physicians to pursue careers in medical research to address a possible shortage in this field.
- What academic medical centers must do to maintain their effectiveness for conducting medical research while facing critical challenges and issues such as funding shortages, rising costs and scientific integrity.
To Register: Go to the For the Media website at www.jamamedia.org and click on the Events tab. For more information, call the JAMA/Archives Media Relations Department at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or email: mediarelations{at}jama-archives.org.
Go back to the top.
JAMA REPORTS
VIDEO: Windows Media | Quicktime
INVESTMENT IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH DOUBLED OVER TEN YEARS
VIDEO:
NAT SOT UP FULL FOR :06
File of doctor in exam room talking to Alzheimer’s patient
AUDIO:
"Can you think of what day of the week it is today?
(Pause) No."
VIDEO:
B-ROLL
Wide shot of patient, wife and doctor in exam room
AUDIO:
THIS PATIENT HAS ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE. HIS FAMILY WOULD GIVE ANYTHING FOR AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT, OR BETTER YET, A CURE.
VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
@ :14
Super: Hamilton Moses, M.D.
The Alerion Institute
Runs :15
AUDIO:
“Many of the diseases for which we really need better ways of curing or preventing or treating have no answers. Areas like Alzheimer’s disease or in the very young, autism, juvenile diabetes."
VIDEO:
B-ROLL
Dr. Moses getting book from shelf in office
Dr. Moses at desk/computer
GFX/JAMA COVER
FULL SCREEN GRAPHIC
Title – Biomedical Research Funding
1994 $37.1 Billion
2003 $94.3 Billion
After adjusting for inflation research funding doubled
AUDIO:
THAT’S WHY DR. HAMILTON MOSES OF THE ALERION (uh-LARE-ee-on) INSTITUTE, A VIRGINA THINK TANK, AND COLLEAGUES STUDIED ALL THE U.S. FUNDING FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH BETWEEN 1994 AND 2003. THEIR FINDINGS APPEAR IN A THEME ISSUE OF JAMA, THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CALLED “MEDICAL RESEARCH—THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE." THEY FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH DOLLARS INCREASED FROM ABOUT 37 BILLION TO 94 BILLION DOLLARS. AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION, THAT INCREASE IS DOUBLE THE MONEY.
VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Hamilton Moses, M.D.
The Alerion Institute
Runs :13
AUDIO:
"Of the total, the largest share comes from industry, about 60%. The next largest from the federal government, about 35%. The remaining 5% comes from foundations and charities as well as from state and local governments."
VIDEO:
B-ROLL
Technicians in labs
Pharmacists filling prescriptions
AUDIO:
DR. MOSES SAYS IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT INDUSTRY, MEANING DRUG AND MEDICAL COMPANIES, SHOULD FUND THE MOST, SINCE THEY ARE INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THEIR BUSINESSES. BUT HE SAYS FOUNDATIONS SHOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT THEY SPEND ON RESEARCH.
VIDEO:
SOT/FULL
Hamilton Moses, M.D.
The Alerion Institute
Runs :20
AUDIO:
"Foundations have a vital role to play in certain kinds of research. They are able to support research that is risky scientifically for scientists who are going in a very new area that may be extremely important. They also have latitude to invest in research that is politically not attractive to either government or industry."
VIDEO:
B-ROLL
Technicians working in labs
Doctor with Alzheimer patient and wife
AUDIO:
HE SAYS WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE RESEARCH ON THE TOUGH QUESTIONS, GET SCIENTISTS AND OTHERS TO COLLABORATE ON RESEARCH, AND DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING RESEARCH USER-FRIENDLY FOR DOCTORS, TO HELP THEM CARE FOR THEIR PATIENTS. THIS IS MAVIS PRALL WITH THE JAMA REPORT.
