Towards the end of April, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to take part in a science advocacy day on Capitol Hill organized by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). I stumbled across this opportunity as part of an iJOBS event email and decided to apply simply on a whim. If the outcome was in my favor, it would be a great experience to add to my tool belt in my exploration of the policy career field. Fortunately for me, I was accepted!
The two-day event started with an overview presentation by Benjamin Corb, Director of Public Affairs for ASBMB, on how a bill becomes a law, what to expect in our congressional meetings and how to conduct the meetings with representatives and their staff. Understanding how a bill becomes a law always leaves me nostalgic for that classic episode from Schoolhouse Rock!. During this initial evening event, I also met my mentor for the advocacy day, Dr. Terri Goss Kinzy, Vice President of Research and Economic Development at Rutgers University. Dr. Kinzy is primarily responsible for corporate contracts and research operations for the university. She also has experience speaking to government organizations such as NIH with regards to promoting research programs and opportunities at Rutgers University.
[caption id="attachment_1271" align="aligncenter" width="400"]
Earl Markey, Fatu Badiane Markey, Rep. Donald Payne, Dr. Terri Goss Kinzy (from left to right)[/caption]
The evening ended with a dinner where I was able to meet the other students and postdocs who were also selected for the advocacy day. As we introduced ourselves and enjoyed the meal, we had the opportunity to practice describing our research to a non-science audience with Sarah Martin, the ASBMB science policy fellow. This practice was a very important part of our lobbying on the Hill the next day. As students and postdocs we are able to bring a very personal side to the discussion of supporting NIH funding. We would not only explain our research focus and the importance of discovery within the larger society, but also our experience and how we view our futures with regards to the stability of available funding. The meetings for the next day were arranged so that we met with representatives from the districts and states where we attended school and resided. This adds the additional impact of not only advocating as scientists-in-training, but also as constituents. These are the representatives that were placed into office based on our votes; the opportunity to address them directly with some of our concerns as constituents is the cornerstone of democracy.
The next day, I met Dr. Kinzy at breakfast and we made our way over the the US Capitol along with Peter Mercredi, a post-doc at St. Jude’s, and his mentor. The day was gloomy, but our spirits were not wavered. We looked over our busy schedule and quickly realized there would be a lot of running around in order to make all of the appointments on time. The first three meetings were with staff from the offices of Sen. Pat Toomey, Rep. Chaka Fattah, and Rep. Frank Pallone and all the meetings were scheduled back-to-back. We made it to each one on time, although just barely for the third meeting, and presented the case for supporting NIH funding. I focused on the importance of my research in the pediatric cancer, Ewing’s sarcoma, which currently has no targeted treatments and benefits immensely from continued NIH funding. In addition, I focused on the impact of research within the broader community. As a graduate student, I have mentored numerous undergraduates and even high school students to help foster their interest in research. I have also collaborated with researchers that have patented their inventions and sold them to larger biotechnology companies. These examples indicate the impact of our work on the larger local economy.
The last two meetings of the day were with staffers from the offices of Sen. Robert Casey and Rep. Donald Payne. We were fortunate enough to catch Rep. Payne before he left his office to go vote and took a quick group picture with him. He was very receptive to our introductions before leaving us to speak to his staffer. In this conversation, Dr. Kinzy and I continued with the same themes we had discussed earlier. Dr. Kinzy focused on the importance of Rutgers as a strong, local research institution and its recent induction into the Big 10 consortium. Our conversation ended by asking about the Representative’s stance on moving NIH funding from the discretionary pool in the budget to mandatory. This budget relocation topic is somewhat controversial and currently does not have much congressional support, but it would guarantee stable funding for the NIH and any supported research.
The day ended with an evening hors d’oeuvres on Capitol Hill and acknowledgement of Rep. Diana De Gette who received the Schachman Award from ASBMB for all her hard work in promoting research funding. Overall, I had had a fairly successful day running around Capitol Hill. All of the Congressmen I met were in support of, or at least not blatantly against supporting NIH funding. Several had even started their own initiatives at the local level to promote health related research. In discussing my experience with some other students during this cocktail hour, however, I realized that there were several who had had some unpleasant experiences in the meetings with their representatives. Supporting research simply was not a part of the political agenda with certain congressmen and they made that very clear during the meetings. In spite of this, though, the students still walked away with very positive memories from this unique experience.
As graduate students with only one goal in mind – to graduate – we can sometimes be oblivious of all the forces that have an influence on our research and how these forces can be molded by our political involvement. The next time you have a gel running in the background, take a minute to look up your local representative and examine their voting record, particularly with regards to supporting research funding. In this very competitive funding climate we need to remember that the money that supports our research is not determined by random events; rather, it can be influenced by the people we place in office to represent our needs. We all need to do our part to ensure a more stable future for biomedical research. Call your representative, write to them, set up an in-person meeting, and remember to VOTE in your local elections.