From labs to legislation: The interplay between academic research and political realities

Pandemics exact substantial human and economic tolls on society. Considering the interconnectedness of our global society, the recurrence of another viral pandemic appears virtually inevitable. In 2021, during the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration implemented a multifaceted approach to combat the spread of disease, including vaccine distribution, issuing public health guidance, testing, and tracing, providing economic relief, and investing in research and development. To this latter end, $3.2 billion was allocated from the American Rescue Plan Act [1https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319enr.pdf.Google Scholar] to inaugurate the Antiviral Program for Pandemics (APP) [2https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/antivirals.Google Scholar] under the aegis of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Central to this initiative was the establishment of nine Antiviral Drug Discovery (AViDD) Centers [3https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/antiviral-drug-discovery-centers-pathogens-pandemic-concern.Google Scholar], overseen by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), tasked with a comprehensive five-year mandate to discover and develop novel direct-acting antiviral therapeutics. These efforts aimed not only to mitigate the escalation of viral outbreaks into full-fledged pandemics but also to furnish effective treatments for afflicted individuals. $1.2 billion was earmarked for the AViDD program. Subsequently, $577 million was disbursed to sustain the initial three years of operations for the AViDD Centers. As the first three years of funding come to a close in fiscal year 2025, many projects across the Centers have made significant progress in identifying promising lead compounds with demonstrated effectiveness against coronaviruses and other viruses of pandemic potential. Approximately 150 publications from the 9 Centers are publicly available, and several Centers hold patents (provisional or otherwise) on promising chemical compounds. However, at this critical juncture now lays a substantial obstacle. Regrettably, funds earmarked for Years 4 and 5 were reallocated as part of the pandemic response effort to address the pressing need to accelerate COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and to pay for treatments [4https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105847.Google Scholar]. Our AViDD Center scientists now lack the means to advance these projects to completion, preventing their transition to pharmaceutical partners for clinical trials. This lamentable circumstance not only underscores the potential squandering of $577 million in taxpayer funds but also portends a critical deficit in the development of urgently needed antiviral medications. AViDD Center Directors sounded the alarm in late 2023 and have since been working on a coordinated legislative outreach strategy to engage Congress. With the pandemic becoming a regular feature of life and the impending federal election in November 2024, anticipated changes in administrative organizations, networks, and personnel may necessitate further reassessment. In the interim, as researchers, practitioners, and educators, our focus should entail the cultivation of dialogue with congressional stakeholders on the economic and societal risk of future pandemics and the critical need for developing novel drugs. These efforts will hopefully lay the groundwork for favorable funding outcomes. In a May 2024 Research!America Alliance Discussion, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, Director of NIAID, confirmed that they are aware that there are no provisions to replenish the $623 million shortfall in funding for the AViDD program; however, "NIAID is committed to doing everything we can to keep those projects going [5https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HogNn_nHdrI.Google Scholar]." On June 26, 2024, the House Appropriations Committee released the first draft of the Fiscal Year 2025 spending bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee [6https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-releases-fy25-labor-health-and-human-services-education-and-related.Google Scholar,7https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/fy25-labor-health-and-human-services-education-and-related-agencies-subcommittee-bill-summary.pdf.Google Scholar]. The legislation proposes a 7 % decrease to the HHS budget, a 22 % cut to the CDC budget, and a flat budget for the NIH. Additionally, it includes a comprehensive restructuring of the NIH, consolidating 27 centers into 15 with the goal of improving coordination between research projects and enhancing funding transparency. In a major breakthrough driven by the advocacy efforts of the Center Directors and key associated personnel, the House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act released in early July 2024 includes explicit directives for NIH to sustain funding for the AViDD Centers [8Page 94 of https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20240710/117503/HMKP-118-AP00-20240710-SD002.pdf.Google Scholar]. The Committee also voiced strong support for the AViDD Center's mission to serve as the first line of defense against future pandemics and expressed concern about the uncertainty of future funding. While the bill is expected to undergo further revisions, and future funding is in no way guaranteed, this development marks a significant step forward, showcasing the impact of collaborative science advocacy efforts at the highest levels of the government. Historically, academia has maintained a distinct sphere from the political milieu of Washington, D.C.; however, it is incumbent upon us to bridge this divide by demonstrating our capacity for political engagement and advocacy. While science is apolitical and the data impartial, scientists are compelled to form judgments and assert their positions to effectively contribute to pivotal discussions on topics such as health rights and future pandemics. A record number of candidates with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) backgrounds ran for Congress in 2018, and the fraction who won seats were able to play a key role in agenda-setting and promoting specific legislation [9Motta M. Political scientists: a profile of congressional candidates with STEM backgrounds.PS Political Sci Politics. 2020; 54: 1-6https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001031Crossref Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. However, such candidates remain in the minority because traditional political structures often favor candidates with backgrounds in law, business, or political science, which can discourage individuals with STEM backgrounds from pursuing political careers. Additionally, the intricacies of campaigning and fundraising can pose significant challenges for those without prior political experience or connections within established party networks. So, when it comes down to it, what can those of us with formal credentials and training or work experience in a scientific discipline actually do?(1)Direct engagement: Scientists can directly engage with congressional representatives by scheduling meetings, attending public hearings, and participating in congressional or local government briefings. Public hearings are often announced in advance on the websites of the relevant congressional committees (e.g., the House and Senate Appropriations Committee or the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services). Such visits provide an opportunity to strategically present the implications of scientific problems in a manner that underscores their impact on constituents and local industries thereby influencing the evolution of political considerations.(2)Coalition building: Building a consensus across both sides of the political aisle is tricky. Scientists can collaborate with scientific societies, advocacy groups (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and National Academy of Sciences (NAS)), and other stakeholders to form coalitions focused on specific research priorities. These coalitions leverage community-science alliances to distribute specialist knowledge, institutional experience, and social authority to amplify the collective voice and advocate for funding support from Congress.(3)Science policy fellowships: Participating in science policy fellowships, such as those offered by AAAS or other professional societies such as the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) or the Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program (CSEFP), provides young scientists with firsthand experience in the legislative process and enhances their ability to effectively communicate with policymakers.(4)Constituent advocacy: Scientists seeking to promote policies grounded in scientific knowledge can effectively influence public opinion and policy outcomes through a combination of writing and direct engagement with constituents. By crafting op-eds, letters to the editor, articles and commentaries for mainstream and scientific publications, scientists can raise awareness about the significance of research funding and demonstrate the societal impact of their work. Concurrently, engaging with constituents at venues like local town hall meetings, public libraries, and online platforms allows scientists to empower citizens with information and resources to effectively communicate with elected officials. This dual approach not only educates the public but also mobilizes support for evidence-based policies, adapting strategies as political contexts evolve to maximize impact.(5)Participation in congressional caucuses: Joining congressional caucuses focused on science, research, or specific scientific disciplines offers scientists a platform to engage directly with policymakers and advocate consistently for research funding priorities. These caucuses provide opportunities to network with key decision-makers and contribute to shaping legislative agendas that support scientific advancement. Successful advocacy requires sustained effort over time, and by integrating advocacy into daily routines, scientists can amplify their influence and contribute significantly to the support and advancement of research initiatives.(6)Partnerships with industry and nonprofits: Collaborating with industry partners, nonprofit organizations, patient advocacy groups, and philanthropic foundations can strengthen advocacy efforts and provide additional resources for research funding advocacy. Research and early development departments in larger biopharma companies or consortiums such as the International Readiness for Preventing Infectious Viral Diseases (INTREPID) Alliance could play a crucial role in facilitating the transition of validated inhibitors by leveraging their network connections, mobilizing resources, and providing regulatory guidance. Much of this is easier said than done and while integrating scientific priorities into government agendas poses significant challenges, scientists inherently embody persistence and resilience—qualities crucial for catalyzing meaningful change. Let us dispel the misconception that "COVID is over, and we need never think of it again." By uniting efforts and collaborating closely with diverse stakeholders, we can proactively address future pandemics, ensuring the health and well-being of our global community. Saumya Gopalkrishnan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Investigation, Conceptualization. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.