Announcements
Chancellor Fingerhut's Remarks at the NIH Funding Press Conference
National Press Club | March 11, 2008
Good morning. It's an honor to be included on this distinguished panel and to contribute a few comments to this important issue.
I want to acknowledge my colleagues who came from Ohio as well.We have with us the Dean of The Ohio State University College of Medicine and CEO of The Ohio State University Medical Center, Dr. Chip Souba. We also have Dr. Caroline Whitacre who is the Vice Dean for Research at Ohio State. And we've already acknowledged Dr. Jill Rafael‐Fortney who will testify at the Senate Health Committee this morning.
You have already heard from my colleagues about the dangers of losing a generation of young medical investigators as a result of our failure to adequately fund NIH. We've also begun to hear—and we’ll hear more—from panelists and in the report about the health benefits to our citizens that we will not see if these talented researchers are not funded.
Now these are both important considerations, but my focus is different.
As Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents, I am the official in our state responsible for higher education. My charge from Governor Ted Strickland and from our state legislature is clear: It is to make higher education the driver of our state's future economic prosperity.
We understand in Ohio that talent and knowledge is the currency of the new economy, and that the jobs and opportunities of tomorrow will go to those places in the world that invest in innovation, education and research.
Higher education does this in two ways. The first is obvious – colleges and universities train the workers who compete against, and collaborate with, other workers around the world.
But not so obvious is education’s role as a driver of economic prosperity. It contributes to economic growth through basic and applied research, and using that research to build businesses and create jobs.
The reason we have put higher education on the front burner in Ohio is because we recognize that it is in our self‐interest to do so.
We recognize that by attracting and supporting talented researchers who are interested in pushing the boundaries of existing disciplines, we can encourage new inventions and technologies that spur the creation of new industries.
At the dawn of the last century, the automobile and aviation technology developed in Ohio transformed our state – and the world. Who knows what innovations awaiting discovery will do the same for us in this century?
We know there’s only one way to find out. In Ohio, we have reached a broad, bipartisan consensus on the overriding need to invest in our future.
Now I’ll admit it took us awhile to get there. As a former member of the Ohio Senate, I can well recall the days when higher education was the neglected step‐child of our state budget, always being pushed aside by more immediate priorities. Tomorrow suffered because of the demands of today.
But we recognized our mistake and we’re taking steps to correct it. And now is the time for Washington to do the same.
The bipartisan consensus that led to the doubling of NIH funding from 1998 to 2003 must be reborn and must once again reassert itself in the national interest.
The timing of this report cannot be more fortuitous. It arrives not only when there is a risk to the enterprise of medical research in this country, but also during an economic slowdown.
As a former member of Congress and as a former state legislator, I understand why the attention of policymakers turns to short‐term economic stimulus measures at times like this. But the truth is that job growth and economic prosperity are really stimulated by long‐term investment in research and development, which leads to innovative products and services treatments and cures, and which attracts private capital investment that creates jobs and new wealth.
Government investment in research and development is the most powerful factor in this virtuous cycle. The federal government is the cornerstone—the indispensible
partner. And within the federal government, the NIH is the crown jewel.
Let me give you just a couple basic statistics from my state, the State of Ohio.
In 1998, total NIH grants in our state were about $339 million. By 2003, after the doubling of NIH funds, our total also nearly doubled to $661 million. Our National Institutes of Health total—this is total coming to the state—peaked in 2005 at almost $717 million. But by 2007, it had fallen back to $628 million.
Now this is not a result of greater or less success on the part of our institutions because our percentage of the total NIH funding remained relatively constant throughout this period
But I want to point out to you that the 10‐year total from 1998 to 2007 is an investment of $6.3 billion by the federal government in the basic research and innovation infrastructure of our state.
And that generates additional funds.
Our state government invested an additional $274 million, matching and adding on to the NIH funds. Private investment followed as well. Altogether, the bioscience economic impact in our state is over $146 billion, representing more than 1.2 million jobs.
Now you've all been reading about the economic prospects in the State of Ohio in recent weeks.
We know that nothing is going to turn Ohio’s economy on a dime. Economic development requires significant long‐term investment in the industries of the future.
In Ohio and across the country, we are just now seeing the fruits of the NIH investments that were made over the past decade.
NIH funding is at the nucleus of our strategy for economic advancement.
Now is not the time to diminish the base of federal funding from the NIH just when our state is building our economy on the foundation of this federal investment.
And so my message is simple.
NIH funding is an essential tool of building my state’s—and this nation’s—future economic prosperity.
I join with other members of the panel in urging the administration and Congress to give NIH the consistent and vigorous support it needs to fund the research on which America’s health—and economic prosperity—will depend.
Thank you.
