Science policy news weekly roundup: August 19, 2016

 

ASBMB’s Public Affairs Office encourages all readers to be actively involved in the Policy Blotter. If you find a particularly interesting article, please send it to astothert@asbmb.org for inclusion in next week’s roundup.

What’s new in Blotter news?

This week, Andrew Stothert joined the public affairs team as the new ASBMB science policy fellow. Read more about Stothert in his introductory blog post;

Andrew Stothert is the new ASBMB Science Policy Fellow

 

Regardless of which candidate wins the White House this November, medical and scientific research could shape the success of the new administration

How the next administration embraces medical invention (Forbes)

 

The Obama administration recently reallocated $81 million in funds for Zika vaccine development, despite continued bipartisan gridlock on desperately needed additional funds. Lack of consistent funding has many in community wondering if there will ever be an agreement. However, despite funding issues, the National Institutes of Health remains optimistic and continues research efforts toward vaccine development.

$81 million in Zika funding: winners and losers (Forbes)

Democrats blame Republicans for Obama administration’s painful cuts to fund Zika trials (Washington Times)

How is there still no funding bill for Zika? (Guardian)

Despite spending feud, NIH makes do in fight against Zika (Roll Call)

 

A recent NIH survey found overwhelming support for the Precision Medicine Initiative, finding that people from all walks of life would support federal funding for it and would be willing to take part in customized healthcare based on genetic traits.

Survey shows broad support for national precision medicine study (NIH)

 

As the presidential election becomes closer, those of us in the scientific community are beginning to wonder what role, if any, science will play in determining the next commander in chief. Where the candidates stand on such issues as medicine, healthcare and scientific research will have drastic effects on both researchers and clinicians. To this point, both candidates have been fairly vague about their intentions regarding the science community, however recently both have begun to further elaborate on their scientific stances. Donald Trump has voiced his support for bipartisan support in Congress for Zika research funding, and Hillary Clinton has pledged to continue Vice President Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot” initiative. While these are steps in the right direction, hopefully both candidate will become more transparent on issues pertaining to the scientific community in the coming weeks and months.

Where Trump and Clinton stand on health care and medicare (Forbes)

Where do the presidential candidates stand on science? (Newsweek)

Donald Trump: Congress should fund efforts to fight Zika (CBS News)

Clinton endorses Biden’s ‘cancer moonshot’ (Washington Examiner)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *