Re: Discussion about Cures Acceleration Network and the President's

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2010-11-17 21:02 Rajesh Ranganathan open
   7ou come a few 1). Many thanks. ork for Dr. Ranganathan? > Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > > Rajesh > On 11/17/10 5:55 PM, "Hatchett, Richard J." @nss.eop.gov wrote: > Cyndi, Rajesh -- >> Thanks for being flexible. Ms. Avery was very interested in joining the >> discussion. We'll meet in her office (EEOB 426) but why don't you come a few minutes early and meet me in 421? >> Best, >> Richard >> -----Original Message-----
2. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed > that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense > initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ > contacted me). > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are afety or ure of the active at we are doing will be of itive to maintain to be fungible i's goal it how what we maceutical he'll be to be BY v ne a few > failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the > public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active > strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain > focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal > won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly > (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical industry in the process). > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be > interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard > Best, > Richard > ------ Forwarded Message
3. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) Rajesh, Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ contacted me). I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be ll be or coordinated with you in that regard as well. With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical industry in the process). Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be interested in discussing with you. Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard Best, Richard ------ Forwarded Message
4. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   > Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping > (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI > (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ contacted me). > see she is a ies of our I think she'll be most interested to sures D funds for f other pull been calling rojects are y or 'e of the active t we are doing will be of -maintain to be fungible Heidi's goal out how what we maceutical he'll be > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or > efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this > area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of > interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible > to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we > are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical > industry in the process). > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - > Richard > Best, Richard > ------ Forwarded Message
5. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed > that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense > initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ > contacted me). > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or > efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this > area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of > interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible > to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we > are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical > industry in the process). he'll be to be ne a few 1). Many thanks. > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be > interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard > Best, > Richard > ------ Forwarded Message
6. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed > that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense > initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ > contacted me). > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are afety or ure of the active at we are doing will be of itive to maintain to be fungible i's goal it how what we maceutical he'll be to be BY v ne a few > failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the > public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active > strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain > focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal > won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly > (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical industry in the process). > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be > interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard > Best, > Richard > ------ Forwarded Message
7. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) Rajesh, Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ contacted me). I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be ll be or coordinated with you in that regard as well. With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical industry in the process). Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be interested in discussing with you. Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard Best, Richard ------ Forwarded Message
8. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   > Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping > (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI > (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ contacted me). > see she is a ies of our I think she'll be most interested to sures D funds for f other pull been calling rojects are y or 'e of the active t we are doing will be of -maintain to be fungible Heidi's goal out how what we maceutical he'll be > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or > efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this > area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of > interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible > to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we > are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical > industry in the process). > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - > Richard > Best, Richard > ------ Forwarded Message
9. 2010-11-18 08:51 Richard J Hatchett open
   Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI) > Rajesh, > Sorry, I should have clarified that in our initial exchanges, as I assumed > that was the context in which JJ spoke with you. We have an overlapping (and in fact prior) interest in CAN because of the President's biodefense > initiative, and I was taking advantage of JJ's intro to contact you on MCMI (I hadn't heard that you'd been selected for the position before JJ > contacted me). > I'm actually in the late stages of negotiating a move to BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Authority) as deputy director and > I don't think JJ knew this when he spoke with you. It will be good to be coordinated with you in that regard as well. > With respect to Heidi, she comes from the intelligence community so doesn't > have a scientific or pharmaceutical background, but as you'll see she is a very quick study. She oversaw White House coordination of the response to > the pandemic and has been acutely sensitized to the deficiencies of our countermeasures development efforts. I think she'll be most interested to > hear about your and Dr. Collins's vision for CAN and how it will facilitate translational efforts at NIH. > It's probably worth your reviewing the HHS Medical Countermeasures > Enterprise Review document just to get your head in the game. For the better part of a decade, our efforts on MCMs have focused on traditional > government approaches to financing technology development (R&D funds for academia, advanced development contracts for industry, and procurement > contracts serving as the main "reward") with some twiddling of other pull incentives, with only marginal success against threats we can define and not > much progress in developing true rapid response capabilities. > The main conceptual novelty of MCMI is the focus on adjusting the cost side of the equation by making strategic investments at what we've been calling > the "chokepoints" of product development - the places where projects are failing or dying on the vine for reasons other than lack of safety or > efficacy. The overarching goal of MCMI is to change the nature of the public-private partnership governing product development efforts in this > area, changing the role of government from one of "funder" to active strategic collaboration. This is where I think what we are doing will be of > interest to you: we are using the national security imperative to maintain focus and drive budgets but adopting an approach which ought to be fungible > to other areas where our translational efforts are faltering. Heidi's goal won't be to co-opt CAN but to think strategically with you about how what we > are doing might serve to enhance our drug development efforts more broadly (and hopefully preserve the competitiveness of the US biopharmaceutical > industry in the process). he'll be to be ne a few 1). Many thanks. > Happy to chat further but I think that's the kernel of what she'll be > interested in discussing with you. > Do you have a brief bio you could send over by any chance? > Best regards, and I look forward to meeting you on Monday - Richard > Best, > Richard > ------ Forwarded Message

Full conversation →