President Trump’s released his 2018 budget proposal included several major shifts in comparison with previous years, including a decrease in funds allocated for scientific research and environmental protection. Specifically, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could lose 20% of its budget ($5.8 billion) if Trump’s proposal is approved. According to the George Bush administration’s NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, this is a “catastrophic loss.” The NIH is responsible for advancing scientific research, doling out 80% of its budget to 2,500 universities and organizations and supporting 300,000 scientists whose work is vital to the health and prosperity of the nation. The research areas losing the most funding are the workhorses of science —slow and boring to most, but absolutely essential for life as we know it and future progress. Private investors do often contribute to funding scientific endeavors, it is often only the exciting, fast-paced science that is deemed worthy. While this type of science is incredibly interesting- vaccine development and response to outbreaks, driverless cars, and trips to Mars- they do not attempt to solve the more common diseases affecting millions such as diabetes and cancer. Unfortunately, Trump’s budget proposal also focuses on the headline-making science and abandons the areas of important research that the government usually backs.
Interestingly, one area of health research and reform is getting special attention and a proposed increase in funding. If the budget is approved, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be granted $500 million to develop prevention and treatment programs focused on opioid use. While value and morality of these programs depends completely on how they are executed, this could be a turn in a positive direction for many areas of the country. If the programs make sustainable, constructive, and respectful solutions possible, this increase in funding could be a major asset for New Hampshire. According to the Concord Monitor, New Hampshire is third in the nation deaths due to opioid use per capita.
The proposed cuts may be traced back to political tension over a few specific methods, such as stem cell and climate change research. In comparison to the multitude of other very necessary research focuses of NIH-funded universities and organizations, the number of stem cell or climate change projects funded is quite small. As a nation, it makes much more sense to focus on finding cures for cancer, heart disease, and other common ailments and save many lives than it does to dig our heels into the ground and deprive all citizens of new treatments for a vast range of ailments, and it is the hope of many that this rationale will be considered moving forward.
The proposed budget cuts have proved very unpopular, and the nation witnessed hundreds of Marches for Science yesterday. In Concord, NH, at least 2,500 people (6% of the city) attended to march, hear speeches from government leaders and Dartmouth College professors, and speak with local science-related organizations and businesses. 6% of people called out of work, cancelled their children’s ballet lessons or soccer games, or chose to give up some other important part of their limited time off to actively protest. Other rallies around the country in Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles and more drew huge crowds and notable speakers.
In another attack on the scientific process and quality healthcare, President Trump removed the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on Friday due to the physician’s stance on gun violence being a prominent public health concern not matching the ideals of the Trump administration. Murthy was seen by many as a revolutionary leader, and was the first surgeon general to place a large emphasis on gun violence and drug use as primary public health concerns. It is unprecedented to remove a surgeon general before his or her term is over, and in the past surgeon generals have been regarded as nonpartisan as the focus of their work is the health of all American people. Murthy has been replaced by his deputy, Rear Adm. Sylvia Trent-Adams, until a new surgeon general is appointed. This process could take at least several months. Trent-Adams is the first nurse to serve as surgeon general, and was previously the chief nurse of the U.S. Public Health Service. While nurses are an integral part of the healthcare system, it is a fundamentally different training path and nature of work than that of a physician or researcher, and is not a background that best fits the duties of the surgeon general. According to the Washington Post, the surgeon general serves the “nation’s doctor” and is responsible for highlighting “public health problems and offering data and solutions.” This shift in the area of expertise of the leadership may be coincidental or may reflect a shifting focus in the world of healthcare with less emphasis on research.
The Trump administration has directly attacked scientific research and leadership by proposing to defund core disease research programs and by removing strong scientific leaders from places of power within the government. Scientific research is integral to progression, survival, and world leadership and there is no question that the proposed budget cuts will wreak havoc on the nation for generations if passed. In a well-circulated Twitter post, leading astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson stated, “Show me a nation with a science-hostile government, and I’ll show you a society with failing health, wealth, and security.”
1 comment:
Post a Comment