As of October 1, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, will no longer fund research that involves dogs from random source Class B dealers. A similar policy regarding cats was adopted in 2012.
In the context of this grassroots uprising of interest, singling out the historic contributions of one person seems inappropriate. Yet for complementary and integrative health policy and inclusion, there is such a giant.
Federal funding for medical research is trending down -- way down. And this is happening at a time when technology and innovation are trending up, which means we could be missing out on so many lifesaving and life-changing advancements.
Nothing is more damaging to research than funding instability. The universities and many research laboratories -- including those run by the government -- operate like concertinas. They expand and contract according the whim of Congress.
While their videos have been unquestionably successful in terms of raising awareness (1.2 million videos uploaded) and funds ($13.3 million contributed) on behalf of an intractable disease, they have overlooked the most important message of all: vote.
If the emotional abuse of baby monkeys is similar enough to the abuse of baby humans for the results to be extrapolated, how can it be OK? Bullies must be stopped, not rewarded, and taxpayer funding of their assaults is unconscionable.
You've no doubt heard that this doesn't happen in countries like Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada where the gun rules are strict and lives are saved. But here the cycle of death, denial, resistance and madness goes on.
Government investment in research is necessary. We cannot rely on the private sector to fill the void as elected officials cut agency budgets as part of an ill-advised attempt to reduce the deficit. Even if all science agencies were eliminated, we would not put a significant dent in the deficit.
Why do so many groups think that $4.9 billion per year is an acceptable level for cancer research and vote to continue this year after year, even though nearly everyone will have to deal with cancer during their lifetimes? Who came up with this figure?
Thanks to the National Alzheimer's Project Act, we now have a National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease. However, without sufficient funds to implement the Plan, we will fail to accomplish its most transformational goal: to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's by 2025.
Like government or hate it, in the 21st century no other organization can provide the coordination required to develop new knowledge about the nature of the universe at the most basic level, knowledge that is now a matter of global competition.
I have heard some people refer to our current era as one in which HIV/AIDS and the discrimination surrounding it no longer pose major physical and social barriers. Unfortunately, nothing can be further from the truth even though much has improved since those terrible early years.
Never preachy, the film simply lays bare the facts and lets viewers interpret them. It's the same strategy that animal rights organizations have used for years: Give people the information, and let them decide. And it's working.
Pink ribbons are for breast cancer, dark blue ribbons are for colon cancer, and so on. But cancer is more a disease of genes than one of specific tissues, so the specialization of our research and educational efforts based solely on a given cancer's tissue of origin could have detrimental aspects.