Taking research public

Taking research public is the only way to get beyond our habit of seeking--and sometimes receiving--modest increases in the nation's research budget, and to instead double or triple the available dollars. Taxpayers support such an increase. In a recent nationwide Research!America poll, U.S. citizens were asked what percentage of the total healthcare budget they thought should go to medical research (Research!America, 1993). median response was 10%! actual percentage of the $900 billion-plus annual healthcare price tag that pays for research is 3%, which, including all the money currently spent on health-related research by the federal government, the for-profit sector, and philanthropic organizations combined, is a total of about $30 billion. budget of the National Institutes of Health is approximately $11 billion (constituting slightly over 1%); research financed by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is approximately $15 billion (1.5%); the balance is made up by other federal agencies, the Howard Hughes Medical Research Institute, voluntary health agencies, and private foundations (National Institutes of Health, 1993). Where might the money come from to double or triple the amount given to health-related research? One option is to reset national priorities: take the money away from something else and put it into research. Many people favor this, but there is no consensus about the budget item to be reduced or eliminated. Another way to put more money into research is to find new sources of money. Research!America (1993) asked citizens whether they would be willing to pay one dollar per week more in taxes if they could be assured that money would go to support more medical research. Seventy-four percent of citizens said they would pay that extra tax. Seventy-five percent said they would pay one dollar more per prescription medication, and 77% said they would pay $5 more per month in health insurance premiums if assured the money would go to fund medical research. Why doesn't this public support for research translate into more, instead of fewer, dollars for research? answer is that we have failed to articulate to the public our vision of the important societal goals to be accomplished if more research is performed--the human needs that can be met by research. We must have a vision, and we must become comfortable talking about that vision so that people understand it. That is how we take research public. One of the underlying realities we have to face and remedy if we are to re-connect the public to research is that no one else is going to do this for us--not the president, not Congress, not the media, not the educational system (at least not in my lifetime), not scientists (or at least not very many of them as yet), and not public relations departments of Universities. All of these entities may play a role, but they are no substitute for what research administrators can and should do as individuals. We must relinquish the convenient, and even defiant, insistence that it is not part of our job to be spokespersons about research or to be responsive to the people who are paying the bill, that is, the taxpayer. Why don't research administrators speak out about research? primary reason may be that we experience what we do for a living as being part of a closed-loop system that by historical and convenient design doesn't involve the public. We are surrounded by the ingrained mores of a scientific community that insists on damning rather than celebrating the few of their number who become popularizers. Finally, we think we don't know how to talk to the public. research community is fond of saying that we need a better public understanding of science. In truth, the research community needs a better understanding of the public. To quote a thoughtful observer on the topic: The question is: How does a venture in the public communication of science and technology see its public? …