Diary Prequel Package — page 115

stating that his analysis of study section data of non-biodefense grants over the past few years shows a decrease at the same time as the biodefense funding shows an increase. The letter was published in Science, first as an e-publication and then almost 2 weeks later (March 11) as a printed letter in Science. Problem is that the data that he pulled was via CRISP that is not designed to do comparative analysis of funding trends. The letter was signed by >700 microbiologists. The hidden agenda of Ebright and a very small group of signees (like Stanley Falkow) was that they feel that we should not be spending any money on biodefense research. They came to the conclusion in the letter that biodefense research was "hurting" non-biodfense infectious diseases research by diverting money away. They released the letter to the press without ever calling us or even sending the letter to us. This created a media storm and put us on the defensive to respond to what turns out to be entirely misrepresentative data. They took information from 4 out of 30 study sections that really misrepresent the big picture. The study sections involved mostly reflect activity in NIGMS that may be funding fewer "model organism" grants for reasons that have nothing to do with biodefense funding. I was furious! Clearly some few individuals were pushing their anti-biodefense agenda and the rest of the microbiology community was following like sheep. When several were asked about this after the media storm, they were embarrassed (such as Barry Bloom) and said that they really did not think that this was what they were signing on to. Many newspaper articles appeared and I led the rebuttal in the newspapers, NPR, and several speeches. EZ and I will write a letter in response to Science. Clearly when you examine the data correctly, non-biodefense has done as well or better at NIAID as the rest of NIH, i.e. when you compare the percent increases from year to year from 2001 to 2006. Also, much of biodefense money is also spilling over to non-biodefense or "dual-use" projects such as innate immunity, influenza, SARS, diarhheal diseases, etc. Clearly, the Ebright letter is misleading. Problem is that since all money is now tight, people are acting as expected, i.e. they want to blame someone or something for their personal and specific issues. Now they are blaming biodefense resources with a sub-text of anti-Bush Adminstration and anti-Iraq war. It is really ridiculous how they distort and I am in the middle of the fray. However, this is one that I will not back down on. On March 7, I met in my office with Michael Gerson, former top speech-writer for President Bush and now senior advisor and Assistant to the POTUS. Mike wanted to discuss ideas for addressing neglected or other diseases as an initiative for the POTUS to put before the G-8 summit. This is very similar to last year's activities (see above). I will work with him on a malaria intiative (see last year) and a TB in HIV disease initiative. Apparently Gary Edson and Josh Bolton sent him my way. I will be submitting the malaria and TB proposals for the POTUS consideration. March 8 - March 27, 2005 - Continued concern about the H5N1 bird flu in Viet Nam, Thailand, and Cambodia. Most severe now in Viet Nam. Working closely with Stewart Simonson, Julie Gerberding and the DHHS on Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. Mar. 27 - April 1 - Phenomenal vacation with Chris and the girls for Spring Break in Costa Rica. First vacation that I have had unassociated with a lecture or other business in 20 years since our honeymoon. Went for 2 1⁄2 days at Papaguyo Beach and 2 days in rain