Stacie Propst recalls packing up her home in Birmingham, Alabama in November 2001 when her backyard neighbors called her over to the fence. Propst, 34 at the time, had been a post-doctorate fellow at the University of Alabama, where she had studied cystic fibrosis and allergic asthma. But now she was walking away from ten years of bench science to head off to the nation’s capital, not to conduct more research, but to fight for it.

Now vice president of science policy and outreach for the advocacy group Research! America, Propst remembers explaining to her neighbors that many of her colleagues were being driven out of science. Even though her peers were bright and had great ideas, she says she told her neighbors, funding for research wasn’t available for them to pursue the science that excited them. As for her reasons behind the move, she let them know her fears that the value of science was not being communicated effectively and that she wanted to do something about that.

 

But one example she gave—the importance of embryonic stem cell research—caused her neighbors to flinch. “‘I heard that’s killing babies,’” one neighbor told her. “I got the whole spiel,” says Propst, recalling the neighbor’s response. But Propst says she saw an opening. Instead of finishing her packing, she invited her neighbors into her home. For the next half hour, she addressed their misconceptions and explained embryonic stem cell research in terms they could understand. By the end of their conversation, her neighbors had declared themselves in favor of such work. In fact, these former skeptics later became involved with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to support embryonic stem cell research.

 

“If scientists come out of their labs and their clinics and tell people what they understand about their own field as opposed to continuing to feel that no one understands or will get it, they can make a huge difference,” Propst says. “I know a lot of scientists who don’t even talk to their families and their friend about what they do because it is very challenging. We can change that.”

 

When a new administration begins in Washington in 2009 and a new session of Congress convenes, there will be no shortage of critical issues demanding attention. With the country battling two wars, the economy reeling, gas prices soaring, housing prices tumbling, financial institutions teetering, and 45.7 million Americans without health insurance, there will be a competition for not only federal dollars, but legislative action. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, a new administration represents both a challenge and an opportunity for advocates of biomedical research.

 

But no one is waiting for the election results to begin their lobbying efforts for 2009. Even before the ballots are cast and counted, organizations were making their case to the political parties to work their agendas into the party platforms. Research advocates are reaching out to both the McCain and Obama campaigns about policy matters. They’re also plugging their picks to the campaigns on who can provide leadership on scientific issues and who can fill key appointments.

 

What’s different this time around is that scientists like Propst are also getting into the act, mindful that their careers—and U.S. dominance in the medical sciences—is at stake. After enjoying a period of robust investment in biomedical research, scientists have seen their gains erode, the nation become less competitive, and a new generation grow disenchanted with the pursuit of a career in research. What’s more, the value of science itself is under assault as some complain the current administration has bent or ignored science for political ends.