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
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's approval tanks amid Epstein fallout - now less than 30% of independent's approve
President Donald Trump's approval rating has tanked, amid the Jeffrey Epstein files fallout, with less than 30 percent of independents approving of the way the president is handling his job. A new Gallup poll shows Trump's overall approval rating at 37 percent. When broken up across political affiliation, 89 percent of Republicans approve of the job the president is doing. For independents, 29 percent approve of the president's performance and only 2 percent of Democrats approve. The 37 percent approval rating is the lowest of Trump's second term and mere points away from his all-time worst rating of 34 percent at the end of his first term. When it comes to specific issues, just 38 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of immigration, and 37 percent approve of his handling of the economy, two major issues of the president's campaign. The poll was taken between July 7 and 21, after Trump signed his 'big, beautiful bill,' which extended his 2017 tax cuts and increased border security funding while cutting welfare programs such as Medicaid and SNAP. Trump's victory lap on the legislation came to a crashing halt after the Justice Department and FBI came out with a memo stating there was no client list from Epstein, the wealthy financier and convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019. The White House has faced backlash, notably from its own base, after Trump had promised to release the files, and then the feds effectively said the matter was closed. Trump had asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'produce any and all pertinent' grand jury testimony from Epstein's case, 'subject to Court approval,' citing the 'ridiculous amount of publicity' over the case. But the court denied that request. The president's past relationship with Epstein has also been at the center of controversy. The Wall Street Journal reported Trump had been told in May by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appeared in the Epstein Files 'multiple times'. The president denied such claims to reporters earlier this month. Appearing in the files does not indicate an individual has committed any wrongdoing and Trump has not been accused of misconduct in connection with the Epstein case. While respondents in the Gallup poll were not asked about the Epstein drama, a poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov from July 11 to 14 found 67 percent of Americans believe the government is hiding evidence related to the sex offender. When asked if the government should release all documents relating to the feds' Epstein case, 79 percent of respondents said it should.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic
Gov. Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps to win seats for their party. And in mid-decade, no less, in clear violation of the state Constitution. It's sleazy, anti-democratic — and illegal. Even Hochul admits it, but suggests Dems may do it anyway since Texas and Ohio are moving to draw up new districts in their states. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps, writes The Post Editorial Board. Andrew Schwartz / 'All's fair in love and war,' she huffed last week. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Huh? If Texas and Ohio rig their maps, that doesn't give Hochul & Co. the right to break New York's laws — even if her goal is to offset any advantage Republicans get in those states. Note, too, that Hochul is huffing not about protecting New York's influence in Congress but her party's. And at the expense, presumably, of Republican voters in New York, since the goal would be to draw district lines favorable to Democrats. True, Texas and Ohio Republicans are expected draw lines they hope will favor them. But if those states cheat their Democratic voters, those voters can sue. Hochul and her party are worried that if more Republicans are elected from those states, it'll make it harder for Democrats to win control of the House in next year's midterms. But again, if the donkeys think those states are breaking any laws, they can go to court, too. Meanwhile, if Hochul tried to gerrymander in time for the midterm, she'd be doubly violating the state Constitution. First, redistricting can take place only once every 10 years, after the Census, not mid-decade. Second, in 2014 New Yorkers passed a constitutional amendment that empowered an independent decennial redistricting commission and specifically banned partisan gerrymandering. But Democrats ignored the amendment and tried to gerrymander anyway a few years ago, and it took a ruling by the state's top court to stop them. We don't condone gerrymandering, by either party, in any state. It cheats voters, skews representation and undermines democracy. As even Democratic boss Jay Jacobs warns, 'We need to be careful about democracy,' adding, 'You don't change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can.' Given the tight timeframe, it's unlikely Democrats could pull this off. But then, if New York Dems were willing to violate the Constitution before, who can be sure they won't 'break the rules' again to push through corrupt new district lines in time? New Yorkers of both parties should demand Hochul take back her threat and obey the law.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Massie warns blocking Epstein vote in the House could be political liability for GOP in midterms
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday criticized the push to force a vote in the U.S. House on releasing more federal files pertaining to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as "reckless," while the measure's co-sponsors fired back against Republican Party leadership. "House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way," Johnson, R-La., said on NBC News. "But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims," Johnson continued. "And our concern is that the ... discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented, it does not adequately include those protections," he added, referring to the measure introduced by Reps. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Meanwhile, Massie and Khanna took to the airwaves on Sunday to defend their bill — and criticize the Republican leadership, whom they see as standing in the way of holding a vote on the measures. Massie and Khanna both repudiated the allegations that releasing the Epstein files would hurt victims of the financier and convicted sex abuser. In an interview on NBC News, Massie said that Johnson was making a "straw man argument" when the speaker said that the bill does not include protections for victims. "Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released," Massie said. The lawmaker's comments underscore the ongoing divisions within the GOP over the Epstein files, which continue to fuel conspiracy theories among the party's MAGA base and infuriate some of President Donald Trump's strongest supporters. On Friday, Trump deflected questions about Epstein, a former friend. Epstein died from suicide while in jail weeks after being arrested on child sex trafficking charges in 2019. "I have nothing to do with the guy," Trump said of the man he had socialized with for years before a falling out in the mid-2000s with the convicted pedophile. The Trump administration has faced growing backlash in recent weeks after the Justice Department walked back on earlier plans to release the files related to Epstein's case. Massie also criticized Johnson on Sunday for beginning its August recess early in the U.S. House, avoiding being forced to take the vote on the motions related to the Epstein files. "The question is, why isn't Mike Johnson having this vote? Why did he send us home early?" Massie said on ABC News. He also warned of the political implications if Johnson does not hold a vote on the bill. "I'll tell you what's politically going to be a liability is, if we don't vote on this, and we go into the midterms and everybody ... they just check out because Republicans didn't keep their promise," he said. "We'll lose the majority," he continued. Massie said that he thinks pressure will build to hold a vote on it through the August recess period. Some Democrats, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) are also backing the bill. Massie was also asked how he would react if Trump granted convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell some form of clemency. "I don't think she deserves that or needs that," Massie said on ABC News, adding that "it's hard to believe that she, herself, and Epstein did these crimes by themselves," which means it's "time to find out who else was involved," by evaluating documents, bank records and others including plea bargains previously under seal. In recent days, Maxwell was granted limited immunity by the Justice Department to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case. This type of immunity allowed Maxwell to answer questions from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, without fear that the information she provided could later be used against her in any future cases or proceedings. When Johnson was asked what he thought of a possible pardon for Maxwell, he reiterated that the decision is ultimately up to Trump. "Obviously that's a decision of the president," Johnson said, adding, "that's not my lane."
