Sen. Rand Paul misrepresented two studies supported by federal grants, while advocating legislation he introduced to change the federal grant funding process.
In both cases, Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate and Republican from Kentucky, confused the means the researchers used to conduct their experiments with the studies' ends, or purpose. Paul also ignored the broader implications of the research.
Paul characterized one study funded by the National Science Foundation as “bad science” because it looked at “shrimp on a treadmill.” But the scientists developed the treadmill as a means of studying how bacterial infection affects shrimp respiration during activity.
Paul also left out the broader goal of the shrimp research: To understand how the recent decrease in water oxygen levels where shrimp and other seafood live might affect how they handle infections.
Paul said it's “absurd” that the National Institutes of Health provided $2 million for a study on whether “kids don't like food that has been sneezed on.” But that money went to a six-year project, composed of multiple studies, on children's reasoning about foods. One study used a video of an actor sneezing on food as a means of understanding if young children can pick up on subtle cues about contamination.
Paul also ignored the ultimate aim of the NIH research: To contribute to developing ways to nudge kids to make safer and more healthy food choices by understanding why they make certain choices to begin with.
Paul, who worked as an ophthalmologist before entering politics, made his remarks on Oct. 18 during a hearing on federal support for research. A day earlier, Paul introduced the BASIC Research Act, which, if passed, would make a number of changes to the way federal agencies fund basic research.
Paul mentioned his legislation multiple times during the Oct. 18 hearing, arguing it would help take the “bias” out of the grant review process.
Among other things, the bill would require grant review panels to include a “taxpayer advocate.” The bill defines this person as “someone whose main focus is on the value proposed research delivers to the taxpayer.”
Paul's bill would also require panels to include a least one person who is an expert in an unrelated field to the proposed grant project and hasn't been affiliated with any academic or research institution for 10 years.
To be clear, we take no position on whether or not the federal government should have funded these two research projects – that's a matter of opinion. Paul has the right to his opinion that the government shouldn't have funded them. But in advocating his legislation, he mischaracterized the purpose and scope of the two research projects.
SUMMARY: In Congress, lawmakers are close to passing a major bill that would increase funding for the FDA, the NIH, and the effort to fight opioid abuse. The measure would also introduce more flexible standards for drug approvals, reducing the need for costly clinical trials. Lisa Desjardins reports and Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Sydney Lupkin of Kaiser Health News and Ed Silverman of STAT News for more.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): While most attention has been focused on the action at Trump Tower in Manhattan, lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol are close to passing a major bill that would lead to big changes for drug approval, medical research and much more.
Lisa Desjardins kicks off our coverage with this report.
LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):Weeks from the end of its term, Congress is on the verge of passing a whopper of a bipartisan bill.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, Majority Leader: This legislation promotes critical investments in research.
SEN. HARRY REID, Minority Leader: We're going to pass the Cures Act.
LISA DESJARDINS: A godsend to supporters, a spending spree or corporate giveaway to critics, here's a look at the 21st century medical cures bill. It is a mammoth $6 billion measure, now four major pieces of legislation packed in one, starting with a giant nearly $5 billion shot of funding to the National Institutes of Health for research.
That includes almost $2 billion for the 'Moonshot' effort led by Vice President Joe Biden to find a cure for cancer praised in a White House Web video today.
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: A lot of lives will be affected by this bill, God willing.
LISA DESJARDINS: That's one reason many Democrats are on board. Another? The bill now includes $1 billion to address the opioid epidemic. It's a national crisis that's been in funding limbo for months.
A third major piece? Mental health reform, including a new assistant secretary position for mental health and substance use.
Republican Tim Murphy, a psychologist, has pushed for this for years.
REP. TIM MURPHY (R-Pa.): This doesn't end the scourge of mental illness, but this puts us on a path to really make some substantial change and give people help.
LISA DESJARDINS: Now for what Republican leaders love, the bill's core, reforming and speeding up the Food and Drug Administration's drug approval process.
To some, that's modernization that cuts red tape, but to others it's a safety risk. And some lawmakers see it as a gift to drug companies.
Those voices are led by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-Mass.): I cannot vote for this bill. I will fight it, because I know the difference between compromise and extortion.
LISA DESJARDINS: But she is in the minority. The bill has received bipartisan support in Congress so far, and the president plans to sign it into law.
For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Lisa Desjardins.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Let's dive a little deeper now into this bill, what would change, and some of the criticisms around it.
For that, we're joined by two reporters who have covered this field extensively, Sydney Lupkin of Kaiser Health News; and Ed Silverman, senior writer with STAT News, a site covering medicine and health care.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
