What’s it like to serve as a director of the largest biotechnology firm in the world?
Phyllis Arthur knows because it’s her job. Arthur’s official title is almost too long to blog (she jokes about how long it is). Essentially, she’s the senior director for vaccines at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, meaning she works to ensure that innovative vaccine companies can get product on the market.
But the market she deals in does not function as one might expect.
Because of the risks involved in research and private companies have little reason to purchase biodefense drugs in bulk, there’s really just one customer purchasing medical countermeasures: the government.
“The government has to show its long-term commitment to this kind of research,” Arthur said.
Arthur deals with biodefense businesses and government agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. She creates a line of communication that, she hopes, will promote research and development of vaccines. But she says it’s up to the government to “show that there’s a viable marketplace for these products.”
Given that, is the government showing a serious, enduring commitment to biodefense?
Dakota Wood, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said it’s difficult to put a price tag on biodefense.
“Spending on any capability – offensive, defensive, support – comes down to balancing and prioritizing among competing demands,” Wood said. “We’ll never achieve perfect protection against any threat.”
He added, “I think the problem will compound as science progresses in the direction of genetic engineering.”
The Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit that investigates wasteful government spending, is concerned about the overlap of government agencies involved in biodefense: the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense all include biodefense initiatives.
The director of investigations for the Project, Nick Schwellenbach, proposes a lone agency take charge of all biodefense oversight. However, he doubts that will happen.
“Agencies with a piece of the biodefense pie don’t want to give up control of their funding to another agency,” Schwellenbach said.
Budget Cutting Concerns
Several lawmakers are pushing for more funding on a Food and Drug Administration biodefense research facility in their home state. The problem is that the General Services Administration is not providing enough funds to build a fully functioning facility, argues a coalition of senators and representatives from Maryland. The group explains its position in a press release.
The situation in Maryland is one example of what may be a broader issue. It concerns future swaths left behind after Congressional budget cuts. In an effort to trim wasteful spending, will Congress stymie biodefense research deemed too abstract or removed from actual threats?
It’s something biotech lobbyists like Arthur don’t want to happen. Cutting spending on biodefense research halts the only realistic flow of medical countermeasure advancement.
“Biodefense companies are primarily concerned about making sure the federal government is a good partner,” Arthur said.
In a time of heated debates in Washington over the nation’s budget and debt ceiling, Arthur and other biotech lobbyists continue to push for a steady stream of biodefense funding. But perhaps nothing is off limits when it comes to cutting the budget.
