“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” ~ President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Politics. It is a shame biology became so political.
Except it was always political.
The Human Genome Project was launched shortly before President Bill Clinton took office. He quickly seized on it as a response, in part, to critics of his free trade policies.
It was the end of history. The post-war world order had prevailed.
For Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, Clinton’s devotion to the soaring narratives of scientific achievement to explain away offshoring of manufacturing, was a cash cow. It is entirely possible that producing an actual map of the human genome was secondary to the goal of funding NIH’s operations.
Until Dr. Craig Venter showed up. Venter had grown weary of the slow pace at NIH – feature not a bug in Washington – and went off to found Celera Genomics where he planned to beat NIH to the finish line.
This would not do for President Clinton, whose faith in the primacy of government – he knew nothing else – was unshakeable. After all, $3B in government cheese should beat the private sector every time, right?
Phone calls were made, a press conference was called, and President Clinton, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Dr. Collins announced a draft of the human genome at press conference in 2000.
($3B and we got a draft?)
The message was clear. Government sponsored scientific research was and would be the center of gravity for years to come.
Policy. As Eisenhower warned, a government contract has a tendency to make the mind – of an administrator at least – less curious. It might even make one actively incurious.
Congress is quite obviously in quite a few pickles these days but one they must wrestle with is the effects Ike’s rightness. Before the House, is at least some evidence that leaders of the National Institutes of Health attempted to disguise the role their funding may have played in origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Worse, and more directly to President Eisenhower’s point, NIH staff and a group of academic scientists around the world worked, apparently with the help of the White House and certain social media companies, to limit the reach and influence of dissenting scientists. These allegations are the subject of a SCOTUS-bound Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
Less dramatic perhaps is NIH’s longstanding refusal to properly oversee grant funded clinical trials, to ensure results are reported a timely manner. Late last year, the Office of the Inspector General at Health and Human Services released an audit that revealed about half of grantees failed to submit results on time or at all.
What will be done? As we have pointed out, funding is the first and most obvious place where Congress’ discontent will be felt. Given the institutional prerogatives of NIH, cuts to funding will impact grants first as the institution attempts to retain headcount as much as possible.
Second order effects are likely to be a call for reform. These efforts could include term limits on Institute directors. It could also result in much more decentralized funding. About 25 institutions receive about 30-40% of all NIH funding.
While no one expects NIH funding to disappear, the future looks slower, smaller and a little less clubby. That begs the question, “is the biotech century over already?”
Power. There have been many triumphs of government funded research, Humira was developed, in part, with British government funding. The genetic testing for mutations in tumors has refined treatments and inspired new therapies. That might not have possible had not sequencing advanced so during HGP.
However, the “but for” argument can still be challenged.
In the absence of NIH funding would not a private sector source step forward? Certainly not on the same scale. Risk is real when you get outside the Beltway. The new cost of capital paradigm will probably weed out the marginal projects and certain things will not happen.
Will it matter? Certainly. There is a price for not listening to Ike.
The world has changed. If it was not clear before this weekend, it is now. The world is much more like Eisenhower's than it is Clintons.
Have a great rest of your weekend.
Emily Evans
Managing Director – Health Policy
Twitter
