DOCTORS’ LOUNGE
(continued from page 29)
research suffered greatly. I remember the
day in unit lab in medical school when
my friend Russell wandered in and said,
“Have you heard of this new disease?”
That was 1981. Homophobia and bigotry
against gay men were such powerful polit-
ical forces that only the determination and
courageous persistence of AIDS activists
and scientific allies finally led, in 1984, to
federal funding for AIDS research.
Trying to make networks of scientific
endeavor more streamlined and cost-ef-
fective is also fraught with problems. One
piece of knowledge is built on the last; col-
legial relationships and lab discussions in-
form progress; experiments and concepts
that stall frustratingly for months will sud-
denly hit a breakthrough point and new
data can be obtained. Trying to merge the
multiple separate Institutes which operate
together under the umbrella of the NIH is
a very bad idea. Each one is expert in its
own field; they are separate for a reason.
Changing the layers of decision-making
for the sake of spending fewer dollars will
30
LOUISVILLE MEDICINE
make them less successful, not more. Ba-
sic, complex research is not an assembly
line. Having people who know nothing
about your subject and understand too lit-
tle about how you work then set you some
kind of performance standard, and waste
your time with meetings that don’t involve
your subject, is utterly ridiculous. But it’s
just the kind of thing meddlesome, short-
sighted, business-oriented people want to
do.
The health of millions of people de-
pends on NIH-funded research. We have
been successful in fighting coronary artery
disease and CHF because of the Nation-
al Heart and Lung Institute. We pay with
tax dollars for research on drugs that the
pharmaceutical industry will not develop,
for lack of eventual profit. We have more
than 20 drugs for AIDS now, a disease that
killed 100 percent of the men I cared for
in my youth; the NIH was intimately in-
volved in getting AIDS treatment under-
way.
Thankfully, Rep. Tom Cole, chair of the
House Appropriations Committee, and his
ranking Democratic colleague Nita Lowey,
appear to oppose this budget cut fiercely.
Mr. Cole has championed the NIH for
years, and Ms. Lowey called the cuts “cat-
astrophic” when interviewed by Robert
Pear of the NY Times.
As a child, I was taught the adage, “Ev-
erything is political.” Budget appropria-
tions certainly are. Yet the advancement of
science in biomedical research is a human
issue – not Republican, not Democratic,
not Socialist, not Populist. The members
of Congress need our support to vote their
principles. Get the app “COUNTABLE” to
follow bills through Congress. Be a good
human, and call committee members. (I
have found that 0430 is an excellent time).
Help save the NIH.
Dr. Barry practices Internal Medicine with
Norton Community Medical Associates-Bar-
ret. She is a clinical associate professor at the
University of Louisville School of Medicine,
Department of Medicine.