Former NIH head: We need Boston and the Bay
Times have changed since Dr. Elias Zerhouni ran the National Institutes of Health under President George W. Bush.
Back then, the Republican president was keen to double the agency's budget, not cut it by 40 percent, as President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget proposal calls for.
'I've been in this business for 50 years and I know a thing or two about what our fundamental drivers of success are,' said Zerhouni, who after leaving NIH served as president of global research and development at the pharmaceutical company Sanofi.
'It's not a subsidy that we're giving. It's an investment we're making. In some ways, they are really pennywise and pound-foolish,' he added.
Zerhouni recalls when Republicans would never have considered such drastic steps, which he spells out in his new memoir: 'Disease Knows No Politics.'
In an interview with Erin, Zerhouni talked about what drives successful research and explained why current NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya's suggestion to redistribute research dollars away from coastal powerhouse institutions is misguided.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What do you think about Bhattacharya's push to redistribute research money to the heartland?
Send the money to Pocatello, Idaho, and hope for the best.
He's ignoring the mechanics of why we get these superconcentrations in Boston or in the Bay Area for technology. The notion that you pick and choose and force-feed your research enterprises is naive.
You cannot do science without having access to MIT, access to Harvard, access to Boston University, access to Mass General Hospital. In Boston, you have 250,000 scientists and engineers.
You need a concentration in disciplines to do science today.
But couldn't government funding help build more of them?
The way you do good biomedical research today is by breaking the barriers between biological science and physical sciences and computational sciences. You don't find that everywhere. That combination of talent only exists in a few places.
Bhattacharya seems to say that the maldistribution of dollars is what he thinks is the disease. It's not. It's a fundamental characteristic of powerful research environments where you have multidisciplinary interactions that are constantly interacting.
Places like San Francisco and Seattle and the Bay have benefited from decades of investment by universities, philanthropies, government. You can't reproduce that by just taking the money from them and sending it somewhere else and thinking you're going to get the same results.
What do you make of how the NIH is functioning under Trump?
I've never seen so many political appointees coordinating above the head of agencies. That is unusual. In my time, there were only two political appointees, the National Cancer Institute director and myself.
It's good if you're attacking unmet needs that are really well-defined. This issue of nutritional sciences for the American people is a big one. That's a good thing if there is political will to face special interests that will come out against it, especially the agricultural lobbies that benefit from subsidies and the companies that do not want any more regulation.
Same for chronic diseases. It's a problem no one has been able to address. But I don't think you're going to address that by just changing the color chemistry in Fruit Loops.
WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE
This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.
Pharmaceutical companies are charting out their artificial intelligence priorities for the next two years, according to a new report from Define Ventures.
It says that most drug industry execs want to use AI to find efficiencies, reduce the cost of drug discovery and boost revenues — and they're looking for the right tech partners to help them.
Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com.
Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01.
BUSINESS PLAN
As state and federal lawmakers consider online safeguards for kids, more companies are using technology to determine their customers' ages and, if needed, block them from using riskier features. Roblox, a wildly popular gaming site, announced this week that it would start estimating users' ages before allowing teens to communicate with certain users without chat filters.
The changes represent a significant step above the industry standard and a broadening of its safety work, reports POLITICO's California tech team.
'This makes Roblox the only major platform that will require age verification like facial age estimation in order to use private voice or unfiltered chat,' Ryan Ebanks, a principal product manager at Roblox, said on a call with press. 'We hope others will join us.'
How it works: Roblox users 13 and older will be able to message and voice chat more freely with people they approve as 'trusted.' If users take a video selfie Roblox will analyze it against a dataset to estimate their age range. Backup options like ID verification, parental consent and participation in a Zoom call are also available.
Teens can add other users, including adults, to the 'trusted' category by importing contacts or scanning their accounts' QR codes. Users identified as under 13 by the estimation technology will have their age corrected and lose access to the feature.
Ebanks said all conversations on Roblox, including those that use the feature, will 'remain proactively monitored for critical harms.' Sharing images and videos over chat is also prohibited, regardless of age, and parents can choose to receive a list of who their kids add as virtual friends.
Why it matters: Federal legislators are considering a bevy of options to require social media and gaming platforms to protect kids. Specifically, lawmakers are concerned with the impact of bullying, online drug sales and how certain features of social media might harm kids' mental and physical health.
Last year, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would have required social media companies to design their platforms with consideration for kids' safety, but it never reached the floor for a vote in the House.
Now, lawmakers are considering a variety of new bills. One idea gaining popularity is to require app stores to verify their users' ages and obtain parental consent for those under 18.
Roblox's chief safety officer, Matt Kaufman, said the company is 'constantly taking input' from policymakers, but the updates aren't a response to any specific proposals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it matters who owns a newspaper
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says he won't seek third term in battleground Wisconsin
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's Democratic governor, Tony Evers, announced Thursday that he will not seek a third term in 2026, creating the first open race for governor in the battleground state in 16 years. It will be Wisconsin's highest profile race next year, as Democrats also angle to take control of the Legislature thanks to redrawn election maps that are friendlier to the party. They are also targeting two congressional districts as Democrats nationwide try to retake the House. The Legislature has been under Republican control since 2011, and some Democrats had hoped that Evers, 73, would run for a third term to give him a chance to potentially work with a Democratic-controlled one. Evers often clashes with Republicans Evers has drawn the ire of President Donald Trump's administration, and his tenure has been marked by his often contentious relationship with the Legislature. Before Evers even took office, Republicans convened a lame-duck session to pass a package of laws to weaken his power. Evers angered Republicans during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when he ordered schools and nonessential businesses to close, issued a statewide mask mandate and tried, unsuccessfully, to delay the state's April presidential primary. Republicans broke with tradition to reject 21 Evers appointees. They also blocked many of his proposals, including expanding Medicare, legalizing marijuana and spending more on child care, K-12 schools and higher education. Evers used his broad veto powers to stop Republicans from enacting a wide range of conservative priorities, including making voting requirements more strict, expanding gun rights, growing the private school voucher program and making abortions more difficult to obtain. But Evers did work with Republicans to pass the most recent state budget, which included $1.5 billion in tax cuts prioritized by the GOP and more funding for both K-12 special education and the University of Wisconsin. Evers also worked with Republicans to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee and funnel more money to local governments. Evers pushed for the redrawing of Wisconsin's legislative boundary lines, which the state Supreme Court ordered after liberal justices gained a majority in 2023. The maps drawn by Republicans, which had been in place for more than a decade, were widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country. The new maps drawn by Evers are more favorable to Democrats and helped them pick up seats in last November's election. Democrats are optimistic that they can win control of at least one legislative chamber next year. Evers waited until after he signed the state budget before making his retirement announcement. Possible candidates The open race is sure to attract several Democratic and Republican candidates. Democrats mentioned as potential candidates include Attorney General Josh Kaul, Lt. Gov. Sarah Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and suburban Milwaukee businessman Bill Berrien are running as Republicans. Others, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and state Senate President Mary Felzkowski, are considering it. The last open race for governor was in 2010, when Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle, similar to Evers, opted not to seek a third term. Republican Scott Walker won that year and served two terms before Evers defeated him in 2018. The only Wisconsin governor to be elected to a third four-year term was Republican Tommy Thompson, who served from 1986 to 2001. He resigned midway through his fourth term. Evers won his first race by just over 1 percentage point in 2018. He won reelection by just over 3 points in 2022. Before being elected governor, Evers worked for 10 years as state superintendent of education after a career as a teacher and school administrator. The folksy governor Evers positioned himself as a folksy governor who would sprinkle the occasional mild swear word into his comments and other Midwestern colloquialisms such as 'holy mackerel' and 'folks.' His mild-mannered demeanor stood in stark contrast to Trump and other political firebrands. 'I think he is the most quintessential Wisconsin politician I've ever seen,' said Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who has been in elected office since 1991. After winning reelection in 2022, Evers noted that he is frequently described as boring, but said: 'As it turns out, boring wins.'
American Press
15 minutes ago
- American Press
UPDATE: Justice Department will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned girlfriend
Ghislaine Maxwell, founder of the terraMar Project, attends a press conference June 25, 2013, on the Issue of Oceans in Sustainable Development Goals at the United Nations headquarters. (Associated Press Archives) Justice Department officials were set to meet on Thursday with Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned girlfriend of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a person familiar with the matter. The meeting in Florida, which Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday he was working to arrange, is part of an ongoing Justice Department effort to cast itself as transparent following fierce backlash from parts of President Donald Trump's base over an earlier refusal to release additional records in the Epstein investigation. In a social media post Tuesday, Blanche said that Trump 'has told us to release all credible evidence' and that if Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the Justice Department 'will hear what she has to say.' A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Thursday. The person who confirmed the meeting insisted on anonymity to describe a closed-door encounter to The Associated Press. A lawyer for Maxwell confirmed on Tuesday there were discussions with the government and said Maxwell 'will always testify truthfully.' The House Committee on Oversight issued a subpoena on Wednesday for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence and is housed at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida. She was sentenced three years ago after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. Officials have said Epstein killed himself in his New York jail cell while awaiting trial in 2019, but his case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories because of his and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. Earlier this month, the Justice Department said it would not release more files related to the Epstein investigation, despite promises that claimed otherwise from Attorney General Pam Bondi. The department also said an Epstein client list does not exist. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Bondi told Trump in May that his name was among high-profile people mentioned in government files of Epstein, though the mention does not imply wrongdoing. Trump, a Republican, has said that he once thought Epstein was a 'terrific guy' but that they later had a falling out. A subcommittee on Wednesday also voted to subpoena the Justice Department for documents related to Epstein. And senators in both major political parties have expressed openness to holding hearings on the matter after Congress' August recess. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, has introduced legislation with bipartisan support that would require the Justice Department to 'make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials' related to Epstein and his associates. House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican majority leader, Rep. Steve Scalise, both of Louisiana, have said they will address whatever outstanding Epstein-related issues are in Congress when they return from recess. Epstein, under a 2008 nonprosecution agreement, pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. That allowed him to avert a possible life sentence, instead serving 13 months in a work release program. He was required to make payments to victims and register as a sex offender. In 2019, Epstein was charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for nearly identical allegations.
