Prof. Pierre Azoulay speaks with WBUR’s Martha Bebinger about a new study examining the potential impact of NIH budget cuts on the development of new medicines. Azoulay and his colleagues found that “more than half of drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 used NIH-funded research that would likely not have happened if the NIH had operated with a 40% smaller budget,” Bebinger explains.
Fierce Biotech reporter Darren Incorvaia writes that a new study by MIT researchers demonstrates how potential NIH budget cuts could endanger the development of new medications. The researchers found that if the NIH budget had been 40% smaller from 1980 to 2007, the level of NIH cuts currently being proposed, “the science underlying numerous drugs approved in the 21st century would not have been funded,” Incorvaia explains. The findings suggest that “massive cuts of the kind that are being contemplated right now could endanger the intellectual foundations of the drugs of tomorrow,” explains Professor Pierre Azoulay.
A new study co-authored by MIT researchers finds that more than half of the drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are connected to NIH research that would be impacted by proposed 40 percent budget cuts, reports Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News.
Institute Prof. Daron Acemoglu participated in a “global dialogue on artificial intelligence governance” at the United Nations, reports Steve Lohr for The New York Times. “The AI quest is currently focused on automating a lot of things, sidelining and displacing workers,” says Acemoglu.
In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, Prof. Evan Lieberman, director of the MIT Center for International Studies, spotlights how states, cities, corporations, and civil society are working to advance climate action. “Today, over 300 U.S. cities have made climate commitments, action plans, or are participating in co-operative initiatives,” Lieberman writes, “Large cities are connecting with global partners through organizations such as C40 Cities, a group of mayors representing some 700mn people worldwide.”
President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif joins Bloomberg’s Wall Street Week to highlight the importance of university research for the U.S. economy. “The federal government funds research at universities,” begins Reif. “Scientific research advances knowledge. And we do it here. And at the same time we educate the leaders of the future, who bring that advanced knowledge into the marketplace. That has been at the heart of the terrific ecosystem of innovation in this country.” He adds: “We have benefitted in the past 80 years from this terrific system, and not having access to that is going to basically kill the source of ideas that will power our economy for the next 80 years.”
Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with Newsweek reporter Jasmine Laws about the impact of rising health insurance costs in California. "This is disastrous for both economic security and health,” says Gruber. “Studies have shown that losing insurance is associated with enormous economic risk and worse health, including death."
Prof. Daron Acemoglu speaks with WBUR’s Here & Now co-host Scott Tong about the role of institutions in the overall prosperity of nations and some of the current challenges facing the US. “It’s a very important part of rebuilding democracy that we have to make experts trusted again. And that has to start with us,” says Acemoglu. “We have to be much more down to Earth. We have to be honest about when we are certain of something and when we are uncertain. And, I think we have to make certain that it’s not our political views that drive our advice or our analysis.”
Writing for Financial Times, Prof. Kristin Forbes explains how to approach to tariff trade-offs. “If even a fraction of the tariffs that have recently been announced are implemented, inflation will pick up and domestic activity will slow — at least over the next year or so,” explains Forbes. “The Fed will need to trade off mitigating the impact of another round of inflation with supporting employment.”
Prof. David Autor speaks with CNBC about how Chinese industrial policies could impact the United States. “The U.S. needs to recognize that it would be much more effective if it worked with its allies,” says Autor.
Writing for The New York Times, Prof. David Autor and Prof. Gordon Hanson of Harvard explore how China is “aggressively contesting the innovative sectors where the United States has long been the unquestioned leader." To avoid a second China Shock, they emphasize that the United States “must nourish industries that have high potential for innovation, funded by joint investments by the private and public sectors.”
In an opinion piece for Bloomberg, Gautam Mukunda PhD '10 highlights the importance of federally funded scientific research. “Today, the federal government’s best investment is scientific research,” writes Mukunda. “The Federal Reserve estimates that support for science has a 150% to 300% return. Few investors have a track record as good.”
Prof. Simon Johnson speaks with Planet Money host Robert Smith about the role institutions play in prosperity gaps in different countries. “I think democracy is absolutely essential for shared prosperity, because if power isn't widely shared across society, in any kind of authoritarian system, you're going to have a situation where, you might have a good ruler or a pro-growth ruler for a while,” says Johnson. “But then they're going to get cranky. They're going to die and pass it on to somebody else who's really not good for growth. So authoritarian rulers are highly unreliable in terms of sustained prosperity."
A new book edited by Prof. Gary Gensler and Prof. Simon Johnson examines the current administration’s impact on the global economy and how new policies could lead to “a profound weakening of both US economic dynamism and the global system it once led,” reports Sam Sutton for Politico.
Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with Newsweek reporter Jasmine Laws about the increase in cigarette taxes in various states across the United States. “There is a large body of economic evidence that shows that higher taxes will reduce smoking – particularly among the young and the poor,” says Gruber. “The downside is that the poor will pay more for cigarettes, stretching their budgets, but that is largely offset by the fact that they will smoke less. If the revenues are used to fund smoking cessation efforts among the poor, which have shown to be effective, this is a great policy opportunity."