Robert Atkinson, president, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
+ Regulatory
John Breslin | Feb 24, 2016

Partisan-based positions threaten U.S. scientific leadership, ITIF report indicates

Partisan-influenced political positions concerning the development of new drugs and government-backed research are threatening the United States’ leadership in the field of life sciences, a new report by leading Washington think tank Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) concludes.

In the hard-hitting report targeting those on both the left and right of the political divide, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation argues that the populist left and libertarian right are undercutting the historically bipartisan approach to scientific research and competitive drug pricing.

Titled “Why Life-Sciences Innovation is Politically ‘Purple’ — and How Partisans Get It Wrong,” the study concludes that if the long-established center cannot hold on this issue, then the widening political divide will mean less life sciences innovation.

“The left is demonizing the pharmaceutical industry; the right is going after the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” Robert Atkinson, author of the report and foundation president, recently told Patient Daily. “If it goes on like this, we are going to be in trouble.”

The current political environment is discouraging, Atkinson believes. He cited presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders' advocating for scrapping drug patents and replacing them with “prizes” to compensate for research funding, as well as those on the right pushing for dramatically shrinking government -- including potentially cutting funding to the NIH -- as contributing factors.

Atkinson hopes the extreme partisan voices will give way to more moderate views.

If this shift does not happen, the U.S., which has long been the world leader in discovering and developing new medicines, will fall behind other countries. This includes China as well as smaller nations like Denmark that are investing heavily in the field, Atkinson said.

Atkinson stated that the situation today contrasts with what happened in the late 80s and early 90s, when the parties came together to double funding for the NIH.

The current discourse undercuts bipartisan support for federal investments in scientific research. It also negatively impacts intellectual property protections and hurts the pricing system that gives private industry strong incentive to innovate, according to the report.

The one area where "drug populists" and "drug libertarians" agree is that they both value current consumption over future innovation, Atkinson said.

But generating innovation, whether in drugs or any other product or service, requires setting aside current consumption in order to hopefully achieve some future benefit.

“If we go down the path either side outlines, it will only lead us backward,” Atkinson said in a press release. “It is time for policymakers to renew their long-standing bipartisan consensus on this issue and ensure the U.S. continues to lead in bio-pharma innovation.”

ITIF is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute focusing on the intersection of technological innovation and public policy.

Organizations in this story

More News