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
CNN
4 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: How much do Republicans care about the Epstein files? More than it might seem.
One of the biggest questions looming over President Donald Trump's second term right now is how much his supporters truly care about the Jeffrey Epstein files. The distinction between caring a lot vs. a little is critical. The former could mean a sustained problem for the president that bleeds into the midterm elections and affects turnout among his typically loyal base. The latter would mean this is likely nothing more than an ugly episode that ultimately fades away. So, now that we've had a chunk of time since the Justice Department released their controversial Epstein memo, how much do Republicans care about all this? A bevy of new polls show they're unhappy with how the Trump administration has handled this scandal and suggest it could be a persistent problem for the GOP. The base is about evenly split on the administration's actions, meaning there's a higher degree of skepticism than we almost ever see with Trump. And that might actually undersell the level of lingering GOP concern. Multiple polls show widespread dissatisfaction overall with the Trump administration's handling of the matter. Both Reuters-Ipsos and Quinnipiac University polling showed Americans overall disapproved of how the Trump team has handled this by huge margins: 54-17% in the former and 63-17% in the latter. (The former poll's question was about Trump personally, while the latter was about the administration more broadly.) So that's just 17% of Americans who said Trump and the administration have gotten this right, in both polls. The vast majority in that group are, of course, Republicans. But delving into the GOP-specific takeaways, the party is about evenly split — which is unusual on the Trump administration's actions. They leaned slightly towards approving the handling of the Epstein probe, 35-29% in the Reuters-Ipsos poll and 40-36% in the Quinnipiac poll. It's difficult to recall an issue on which Republicans were so lukewarm about major Trump actions. For instance, even shortly after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, an event that led many to conclude that Trump's political career was over, a CNN poll showed Republicans approved of Trump's response by a strong margin: 63-32%. Being disenchanted isn't the same as ditching someone politically, however. Precisely how much people actually care is a critical point. There's some evidence that Republicans are downplaying the significance of this. A new CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, for instance, showed just 11% of Republicans said Epstein-related issues matter 'a lot' in their evaluation of Trump's presidency. That's compared to 36% of overall voters who said that. To the extent that's true, it would seem this is something Trump could move past. But polling has a persistent weakness: Respondents aren't always totally honest with themselves or pollsters. For instance, ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats' focus on democracy after the January 6 attack wasn't panning out and that the issue might even spur GOP turnout. The results ultimately showed that the issue was a significant benefit to Democrats, and election-denying Republicans did significantly worse than other Republicans. On Epstein, the CBS-YouGov poll suggests there are gaps between how much people say they care about the issue vs. what their other feelings or behavior reveals. While it showed 50% of Republicans said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the administration's Epstein actions, 83% of polled Republicans said the Justice Department should release all the information it has on Epstein — something the Trump administration has decidedly not done. (The administration late last week moved in court to unseal grand jury testimony. But that's only a small portion of the information, and much of it could remain secret.) The same poll also showed 90% of Republicans believed the Epstein files probably includes damaging information about wealthy or powerful people. Similarly, the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans said 55-17% that they believed the federal government is hiding information about Epstein's death, and 62-11% that it is hiding information about his clients. Those responses suggest Republicans aren't happy with the administration's meager disclosures, even if they're not looking to register that dissatisfaction when explicitly asked. The polling also reveals that even many of those who stand by Trump aren't doing so with a high degree of confidence. While the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans were about split on Trump's actions; only 11% 'strongly' approved of Trump's actions. And while half of Republicans in the CBS-YouGov poll said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the Trump administration's actions, just 10% were 'very' satisfied. That's only about 1 in 10 Republicans who look at this and say they completely sign off. The CBS-YouGov poll also showed MAGA Republicans were more likely to lean towards being satisfied (60% were at least 'somewhat' satisfied) than non-MAGA Republicans (41%). So are MAGA Republicans — the ones who have vociferously called for releasing more information on Epstein — more satisfied than their non-MAGA breathren? Or are they just feeling compelled to toe the Trump party line, at least somewhat? Regardless, those numbers don't mean this won't be a problem with a significant section of Trump's base. Those voters could sour on him, at least somewhat, perhaps in combination with other recent Trump actions they don't love, like on the war in Ukraine. A Wall Street Journal report last week on a letter Trump allegedly wrote for Epstein's 50th birthday back in 2003 appeared to unite even many Epstein-focused influencers behind Trump and against the media, their frequent common enemy. Trump denied he wrote the letter and has sued the Journal; his base seems to largely believe he's being railroaded. But that doesn't mean they're satisfied overall and ready to let the issue go. The data suggest that, for now, this remains a minefield for Trump.
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Environmentalists' lawsuit to halt Alligator Alcatraz filed in wrong court, Florida official says
Florida's top emergency official asked a federal judge on Monday to resist a request by environmentalists to halt an immigration detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz in the middle of the Florida Everglades because their lawsuit was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. Even though the property is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida's southern district is the wrong venue for the lawsuit since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state's middle district. Decisions about the facility also were made in Tallahassee and Washington, Kevin Guthrie, executive director for the Florida Division of Emergency Management, said in a court filing. 'And all the detention facilities, all the buildings, and all the paving at issue are sited in Collier County, not Miami-Dade,' Guthrie said. Environmental groups filed a lawsuit in Florida's southern district last month, asking for the project being built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades to be halted because the process didn't follow state and federal environmental laws. A virtual hearing was being held Monday on the lawsuit. Critics have condemned the facility as a cruel and inhumane threat to the ecologically sensitive wetlands, while Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state officials have defended it as part of the state's aggressive push to support President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has praised Florida for coming forward with the idea, as the department looks to significantly expand its immigration detention capacity. Schneider writes for the Associated Press.
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Found! A U.S. government service that really works
In these days when it seems like the current administration couldn't organize a utensil drawer, what with a military parade witnessed by empty bleachers and immigrant dragnets snaring American citizens and such, it seems like it would be a shock to find a government function that, you know, actually works. I found it. On June 14, I applied to renew my passport, bracing for months of frustration with bureaucratic apathy and torpor. The State Department website that took my application warned that the turnaround time was four to six weeks, which I figured would be the minimum wait. Yet I received my new passport by mail on June 28, or a crisp 14 days later. If you can think of another government service that can perform its task in two weeks from application to consummation, let me know. This was nothing like the old system, which Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal described as: 'Fill out a paper form. Attach a check or money order. Get photos printed — and hope they don't get rejected. Then schlep to the post office, mail back the old passport and wait too long for a new one.' The State Department launched its online passport renewal portal last September, after years of seeking a solution to a tsunami of passport applications. One pilot project went disastrously awry — increasing the time needed to process the paperwork. Eventually all the glitches were ironed out, and the result has been a spectacular success. In terms of customer service, it certainly ranks as one of the triumphs of the Biden administration. Leading the hundreds of workers who implemented the scheme were Luis Coronado, chief information officer for the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, and Matthew Pierce, then the managing director for passport services. Their accomplishment earned them Service to America medals from the Partnership for Public Service, which honor 'outstanding public servants who improve our lives.' Said Robert Thomas, principal deputy assistant secretary of consular affairs at State, in the award certification, 'Luis and Matt led the transformation of a seriously outdated government service into a leading government service that's oriented around the customer.' They did more than that. They struck a blow on behalf of all the public servants who remain invisible and unappreciated when they do their jobs right, but get held up to public vituperation when something goes wrong on their watch. Ministerial functions like car registration and Medicare enrollment and, sure, passport issuance always take the brunt of grousing about the government being so ineffectual. The public has been groomed to think that when you've fallen among government bureaucrats you're hopelessly trapped in an infinite loop. This notion was retailed by Ronald Reagan, with his quip about 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'' Particularly baroque screw-ups generally make it into the media, but for the most part these things don't get screwed up. For the record: I've also had trouble-free experience with the California DMV, even on the one occasion when I had to go in person to get my Real ID. And when I'm due a tax refund, it gets paid. The public image persists of government offices being filled with drones sitting with their foreheads on their desks. Accordingly, on the subreddit where people have been posting their passport renewal timelines — 14 days, 10 days or even less, the tone of the threads is a sort of delighted stupefaction, like someone suddenly blessed with a great stroke of luck. 'This must seriously be the most efficiently run government office that exists,' wrote one Redditor who submitted her application on July 10 and had her passport in hand on July 16. That was my reaction, too. For me the process began on June 10, when I received an email advising that my passport would expire in less than one year and therefore I was eligible for online renewal to obtain a new passport with the customary 10-year term. 'Act Now — Renew your U.S. Passport!' was the subject line, prompting me to check to make sure the message wasn't spam. But it had been sent from a address. After tracking down my passport and determining that State had the expiration date just right, I checked the eligibility requirements for the online service — older than 25; not planning to change my name, sex, date of birth, or place of birth; not planning to travel within six weeks (the moment a renewal application is submitted, the old passport is invalidated); and have a credit or debit card to pay the fee ($130 for the passport, another $30 for a wallet-sized ID card). Then it was on to the nearest CVS for a digital photo, which I submitted online with the application. I received an instant acknowledgment, and emails when my credit card was successfully charged, which started the approval process; when my application was approved; and when the passport was shipped by U.S. Mail, tracking number included. Delivery even came a couple of days earlier than State's initial projection. Passports that have expired within the last five years can also be renewed online. First-time applicants or those with long-expired passports have to do things the old way, filling out paper forms and dropping them off, along with photos and proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, at an official site like a post office or city hall. Some people may be tempted to see online renewal as just another service tailor-made for the upper crust, because who else needs a passport for foreign travel? The truth is that about 56% of adult Americans hold passports — 170 million are in circulation, according to the American Communities Project at Michigan State University. Demand is demographically and culturally diverse. Within Latino communities, the figure is 53%. That's 'higher than one might imagine ... considering their lower incomes and college degrees and often their more rural nature,' reported Dante Chinni, the project director. But those communities also have 'large populations that have reason to travel — newer immigrants who have family and friends back in their home countries,' Chinni wrote in March. 'While international travel is a luxury in some community types, in the Hispanic Centers it is more likely to be seen as part of life.' The passport bureau has been processing as many as 25 million applications a year, up from 3 million annually in the 1970s. Under that onslaught, the consular bureau says, 'applicants were facing months-long waits to get their passports. It was clear the system could not keep up.' Given the success of the online renewal system, it's only natural to ask: What could go wrong? The consular affairs bureau doesn't seem to have been hit hard by DOGEism at State, or at least not as notably as programs such as USAID. That almost feels lucky, given the obvious nexus between passport issuance and immigration and citizenship, two issues with which the Trump White House is obsessed. Notwithstanding the success of Coronado and Pierce at modernizing the passport system's technology, the process is still very much human-powered: More than 1,200 passport specialists are charged with reviewing applications. That's a decline of about 15% over the last couple of years. Their union representatives say the bureau is understaffed, and things are only going to get worse as the bureau experiences a years-long trend of increased caseloads. For now, however, this is a service that really works. I haven't seen any public complaint about an online renewal application getting swallowed up in the gears; thus far, every public comment I've seen for the service is praise. Let's hope that it lasts, and that the determined effort that brought it about can work the same magic on less efficient corners of the government. Don't we owe that to ourselves?
