Table of Contents
The first opinion is a statistical platform for large-scale articles of interesting, lighting, and provocative articles on life sciences written by biotechnology insiders, healthcare workers, researchers and more.
To encourage robust and honest discussion of the issues raised in the first opinion essay, STAT publishes selected letters to editors received accordingly. You can send a letter to the editor here or find the submission form at the end of your first opinion essay.
story
“Don't cut the budgets of the NIH and NSF. Let the government invest like venture capitalists,” Sahand Hormoz
response
Sand Holmoz, a professor of biology at Harvard, argues that the federal government should abolish the Baife-Dor Act, a bipartisan 1980 law that allows academic research institutions, federal research institutes and small businesses to own and manage inventions generated from federally funded research, and instead argues that it will “hold a share of IP generated through NIH and NSF Grants.” This, he argues, “will allow the public to benefit directly from the science they pay.”
That's very wrong. The government is not acting as a venture capitalist. As with the government, there is no VC funding basic research to expand the frontier of science. What Hormoz is missing is that venture funds are willing to support the small entrepreneurial businesses that drive our economy, as the Bayh-Dole Act allows universities to manage and manage the resulting discoveries for commercial development. These companies assume the great risk of doing so, and when a project fails (as is often the case), it is the entrepreneurs, not the public, that will make a hit. However, the public benefits from the Bayh-Dole system are enormous. The academic technology transfer enabled by the Bayh-Dole Act has generated over 200 drugs and vaccines, 18,000 startups, US GDP of $1 trillion and 6.5 million jobs. Holmoz himself said “every dollar of NIH funds was generated at $2.56 in economic activity,” and “a dollar of federal research money would increase by $8.38 in the next decade.”
The genius of the Bayh-Dole system is that it was dispersed in the hands of those who know the technology best from Washington, that is, those who create it. As Holmoz preferred, when bureaucracy controlled the system, no single new drug was developed, and 28,000 inventions were gathering dust on the shelves. That's not the case anymore. The Economist Technology Quarter in 2002 is called Bayhole. “It's probably some of the most inspired laws enacted over the last half century. …More than anything, this single policy measure helped reverse the slide into the sudden industry irrelevant of America,” the economist concludes: “Geoses laying such golden eggs need to grow, protect and even clone the pot, rather than stealing it.”
If you want to keep your lead as the world's leading source of innovation, that's pretty good advice.
– Joseph P. Allen, Executive Director, Bay Doll Union
story
“My sister and I each gave our siblings kidneys — and we faced health effects decades later,” Jane Jill said.
response
A recent work, “My sister and I each gave a kidney to our siblings — and faced health effects decades later,” presents an incomplete expression of donations of living kidneys. We sympathize with family experiences, but the fact is that there is decades of clinical evidence that individuals donate their kidneys is a safe and low risk. Without a doubt, there are exceptions to rules like those in medical procedures, but we continue to worry about highlighting rare exceptions rather than the overwhelming safety and life-saving consequences of living kidney donations. Efforts to reduce the number of live kidney donors increase the already challenging state of our transplant system and raise the threat to the future of transplant care.
Every day, more than a dozen people die waiting for a kidney transplant. There will never be enough dead donors to meet the demand from people with kidney failure, so the only way supply can start to meet needs is living donations. Modern surgical advances, along with current thorough prior pre-assessment, have significantly reduced risk. For example, a recent study shows a mortality rate of less than 1 in 10,000 people (that is a better odds than the average worker driving in the office), with kidney failure occurring at less than 1%. The proven health risks of living kidney donations are minimal, logistic and financial barriers remain, and donors are forgotten immediately after the donation. A better system ensures that the donor does not need to carry too much shoulders on his own, and can be followed more closely after implantation.
As practitioners, advocates and leaders, we must strive to create a more robust, efficient and safe kidney transplant system. This means providing finances (cost reimbursement) and long-term clinical support, ensuring lifelong follow-up beyond the current two-year order, and removing practical and economic barriers that discourage potential nders from moving forward.
– Andy Howard, Chairman of Kidney Transplant Cooperative
story
“Six former CDC Vaccine Advisory Board chairs warn: risk losing access to life-saving vaccinations,” Grace Lee, Nancy Bennett, Jonathan Temte, Carol Baker, Myron Levin and Jose Romero
response
The author of this essay should be praised for addressing this issue. Scientific leadership is very necessary to counter the administration's wise policies, such as removing ACIP members and creating barriers to vaccine approval and use with established efficacy and safety profiles. These false policies lead to a revival of the common infectious diseases that were once eradicated. A revival of cases results in unnecessary morbidity and death. This could put the world's population at risk, not just in the US domestic population, but in this age of global travel. Fire ACIP is unscientific, unwise and unsafe. Those making these decisions do not have the expertise needed to do so. The medical community needs to speak to advocate for the health and welfare of its people.
– DINA STOLMAN, MD, MSPH, retired
story
“Private sector, philanthropy, cannot replace the Trump administration's cut,” James Alwine and Greg Goncalves
response
As a semi-retired veteran of the biopharmaceutical industry, I would like to highlight the important point that these heinous, irrational, mean, and ruthless cuts to US biomedical research funding have a strong downstream impact on the development of new drugs. Taking flamethrowers for biomedical funding severely reduces rapid advances in the treatment of cancer, autoimmune diseases (including Alzheimer's disease), cardiovascular disease, COPD and asthma, and many other serious chronic diseases that can now be treated with highly specific biological products manufactured in biological cells targeting the roots of human disease. The possibilities for treating human diseases with molecular roots are endless, but these harsh measurements cannot be implemented if they are fully realized. A historic tragedy to abandon his position as a global leader in biomedical research. I am trembling at the idea that today and tomorrow scientists may not have the privilege of enjoying the incredible opportunities I had in my year at Amgen. I feel this tragedy in the deepest recesses of my bones.
– Dr. Drew N. Koelner
