In the second of our election-themed podcasts available online, Nature looks at where US biomedical research might head after November's presidential election. Excerpts from our panel discussion:
How are we going to structure our biomedical research enterprise, our graduate training and our undergraduate training for the next generation of scientists? Republicans and Democrats should be able to pull in the same direction on these issues."
Thomas Cech, president, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland
"The prohibition on federal funding of most human embryonic stem-cell research has been an enormous wet blanket on the whole research enterprise in this area."
Jonathan Moreno, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
"[Stem-cell research] has become so politicized, and that has encouraged some scientists to become very exuberant about the potential. Whereas if it hadn't become so politicized, I think they would be a bit more sceptical."
Thomas Cech
"We must preserve the synergy that we have between the public and the private sectors, if we intend to maintain our competitive lead in science and technology."
Gail Cassell, vice-president for scientific affairs, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana
"It might even be time for there to be a life scientist as the science adviser to the president, which would be a departure."
Jonathan Moreno
To hear the full discussion, chaired by our columnist David Goldston, visit http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast Next week's instalment: innovation policy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lab politics. Nature 455, 143 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/455143a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/455143a