Julien Rashid

Faces of Innovation—a new GHTC project that features scientists on the front lines of research and development on new global health tools and technologies—profiles Dr. Aileen Marty, who we met at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Conference. Dr. Marty works at Florida International University and serves on the President’s Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria.My name: Aileen Marty, MDWhere I work: Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University I’m funded by: The US government has supported my research since I began doing research back in the early 1970s. Right now, I’m involved with PACCARB, the President’s Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria.My research: We’re interested in not only resistance by bacteria to antibiotics, but also by other pathogens such as fungal agents, and eventually hope to also focus on antihelminthic agents, and so forth. We are taking a look at it from a one health perspective, which means we try and understand how the agriculture industry may impact the use and availability of antimicrobial agents for humans, what is going on in the environment that’s also altering these things, as well as stewardship and appropriate use of antibiotics and antimicrobials in hospitals and in clinics throughout the United States and throughout the world, and see how those interface with one another. The CDC [US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recently put out a document about antimicrobial resistance that’s highly important. It says we’re already in an era where, for a number of very serious bugs or germs, we are out of antibiotics that actually work. If we do not solve this problem, we’re going to find ourselves in the situation we were in prior to the 20th century. And that impacts much more than infections directly, because modern medicine relies on us not having infections in order to do the surgeries that we’re doing. And to help people with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis or cancer treatments that decrease a person’s immune systems, we depend on the availability of good functioning antibiotics and antimicrobial agents at the right time in the right place for the right patient.Motivation: I love humanity—and I seriously believe that we all have a role to play in making sure that we leave behind a better world than the world we came into. And I become very inspired when I work with young minds, and I make sure that they see the connections between the different systems of the world and how we need to be stewards of the earth.Why US federal support is critical: We mustn’t think of it only in terms of it being global. You must realize that we in the United States are part of the globe. Moreover, individuals who live in the United States, who are citizens of the United States, travel worldwide. And what happens in Bangladesh has an impact on what happens in New York. Look at the recent measles outbreak in New York state, for example. That outbreak originated with an outbreak in Ukraine that passed via Israel and was brought to the United States—and think about what that has done. When we manage outbreaks where they arise, wherever that is, we minimize the footprint there and decrease the risk everywhere. When I’m not in the lab: In my personal life, I have a huge family, which I love dearly, and many, many good friends, and we spend a lot of time coming up with good community plans for helping people. And I belong to the Florida Clinicians for Climate Action, and through that organization we are going to synagogues and churches and other houses of worship where we are explaining the public health impacts of climate change to our people. 

Faces of Innovation—a new GHTC project that features scientists on the front lines of research and development on new global health tools and technologies—profiles Dr. Mohammad Nuhu Amin, who we met at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Conference. Dr. Amin researches sanitation and diarrheal diseases with support from the United States Agency for International Development.My name: Nuhu Amin BDS, MPH, HSCWhere I work: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Bangladesh (icddr,b) I’m funded by: US Agency for International Development My research: My primary goal is to do interventions to reduce diarrhea and cholera in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the urban communities of Dhaka. I’ve worked at icddr,b for the last ten years, and I’ve had the opportunity to work with lots of US universities. Currently I’m working with Stanford University with Professor of Medicine Dr. Stephen Luby on a Rohingya distribution impact assessment. I’m also working on another project with Emory University on a fecal pathogen exposure assessment. And our team is doing a different project with Emory University in collaboration with the University of Sydney to track the sanitation chain to detect pathogens, like norovirus, salmonella, shigella, and cholera, that cause diarrhea. We have previously also collaborated with Johns Hopkins University and we have lots of colleagues who work with Oregon University and other state universities in the United States.Motivation: I am a medical graduate, and I’ve had lots of patients with different problems including diarrhea and other infectious diseases. Bangladesh is a tropical country, so infectious disease rates are really high. This motivates me to not only focus on treatment, but to do the research to remove and prevent these diseases.Why US federal support is critical: USAID is one of our four core donors. They have been funding us for more than 50 years to support the research of our institute. I think the contribution of the US government is important for this research and development. When I’m not in the lab: I’m also a dental surgeon, so I have a clinic. Every day, for two or three hours, I treat patients and particularly patients who are poor. Dental health treatment is expensive, so I aim to serve my patients at a low-price. I have two kids as well, so I spend my time with them—they’re very inspiring for me. In addition, I love to travel to different countries. This year I traveled to almost four countries including Swaziland, South Africa, and India. I love to meet with other people around the world—that’s my hobby. 

Faces of Innovation—a new GHTC project that features scientists on the front lines of research and development on new global health tools and technologies—profiles Dr. Katie Button-Simons, who we met at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Conference, who does research on drug-resistance in malaria at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.My name: Katie Button-Simons, PhD, MSWhere I work: University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, IndianaI’m funded by: National Institutes of Health and National Science FoundationMy research: We try to understand how malaria becomes resistant to drugs—so you want to find particular genes that control the resistance so that we can watch how those arise and spread in the field so that we can provide recommendations for local health agencies about what drugs they should be using to treat people and—more long-term—so that we can identify good targets for drug development and drugs that are already in the pipeline that will work well.Motivation: I am really interested in understanding how parasites and other pathogens evolve resistance. It didn’t so much matter to me which organism I worked on, although malaria is really interesting because it so quickly evolves resistance and does so to pretty much everything we throw at it—and not all pathogens can do that as readily. Why federal support is critical: The diseases that are common in other areas of the world are really putting a heavy burden on those areas and it really affects what people are able to do. If we can remove some of that disease pressure then we’re going to see a sort of revolution around the world. I’m really lucky to be where I am, and if I had been born in a different region of the world where I didn’t have everything that I’ve grown up with, I couldn’t be here. I see so much potential that goes unrecognized everywhere else because of the disease pressures that are in those regions. If we can get rid of those, then we can make great strides together.When I’m not in the lab: I really like hiking and soccer and reading.

Faces of Innovation—a new GHTC project that features scientists on the front lines of research and development on new global health tools and technologies—profiles Mohammad Ariful Islam, who we met at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Conference. Ariful researches influenza in Bangladesh with funding from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.My name: Md. Ariful Islam, MSSc, MPHMy name: Md Ariful Islam, MSS, MPHWhere I work: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) I’m funded by: US Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMy research: We’re doing influenza surveillance in Bangladesh. Surveillance is important to detect novel influenza and to understand what type of influenza strains are circulating Bangladesh. Our surveillance objectives are to identify individuals and clusters of people with life-threatening infections with influenza virus and to characterize the diversity of strains of influenza in circulation in Bangladesh. We’re working in Bangladesh to detect novel influenza strains so that we can take immediate measures if needed.Motivation: Every day we work with patients. We are happy that we can use our efforts for the betterment of people in our country. Influenza is a severe disease for many patients, and if a disease outbreak occurs in Bangladesh, it may spread throughout the world—so I think we are doing a great job for the people. Why US federal support is critical: I believe that influenza is a problem not only for Bangladesh, it’s not only a problem for the US citizen, it is a problem for the whole world. If there is a disease outbreak like bird flu or swine flu, then all of the people in the world will suffer. The US policymakers and funders are doing a great job of funding this project to investigate influenza.When I’m not in the lab: I’m a big fan of cricket, so when I get some time I play with my colleagues. It also keep my body fit. If I want to work more, then I need to exercise more—so I like cricket.

A crisp chill hung in the air one early morning last week as members of the GHTC team stepped up the stairs adjoining the newly refurbished Apple Carnegie Library in Washington, DC, to pose for a photo with more than one hundred fellow research and development (R&D) advocates from across the country. GHTC was joining these representatives from more than 350 organizations as part of the Rally for Medical Research. Later that day, we would all descend upon Capitol Hill to implore lawmakers to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). For GHTC, increasing the NIH budget is a clear priority to improve global health—but our team was also at the Rally on another mission: to show that global health and domestic health R&D advocates can and should work together to achieve our shared goals.The Rally for Medical Research was launched in 2013 with a speech given from atop those same stairs. That year, NIH funding was at risk of sweeping budget cuts. But in every year since the launch of the Rally, with health R&D advocates, patients, and scientists coming to Washington to advocate collectively for investments in NIH, the agency’s budget has grown. In fact, over the last six years, the NIH budget has increased by more than one-third—showing dramatic growth after a decade of stagnation. This year, advocates requested an increase of at least another US$2.5 billion, which would bring total NIH funding to $41.6 billion.On the steps of the Carnegie Library, GHTC stood side by side with advocates who were patients, caregivers, and researchers. Almost every advocate there was focused on a health priority affecting Americans, and so that morning, we were unsure how our globally focused message would land. But we planned to stick with our conviction: that domestic health R&D and global health R&D should and do share many of the same priorities.And for the rest of the day, we marched around Capitol Hill and made that argument to anyone who would listen.The first and most intuitive point we would make is that NIH-funded research for American health also benefits global health. You can often trace the streams of new domestic and global health technologies to the same wellspring of basic research. For example, in the 1980s when little was known about HIV and AIDS, the NIH was at the forefront of uncovering its basic biology. Later NIH research helped kickstart many of the technologies now used around the world for HIV and AIDS treatment and prevention. With advancements in R&D tools and strategies—such as artificial intelligence and the repurposing of drugs already approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—it will only become easier to find global health applications from domestically-focused R&D.But the flow of R&D from the United States to the rest of the world is only part of the story. At the Rally, we tried to share a more nuanced narrative, explaining that the reverse is also true: when the United States invests directly in R&D for global health aims, that research often returns to benefit Americans. For instance, pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is now commonly prescribed to prevent HIV infections for at-risk Americans and is a key part of the newly announced strategy to end HIV in the United States over the next decade. Many lawmakers may not realize, however, that PrEP was developed through clinical trials conducted mostly in low- and middle-income countries.Likewise, clinical trials for tuberculosis (TB) are often done abroad because they are difficult to conduct in the United States, where the patient population is small and dispersed. Pretomanid, a new antibiotic, is being called a game-changer for the treatment of highly drug-resistant TB. Its recent FDA approval as part of a combination treatment regimen was based on results from a clinical trial in South Africa and Tanzania. Now, in addition to treating patients around the world, the drug will be used in the United States to treat patients suffering from this deadly and most difficult to treat form of TB.And this unsung story extends to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Research on NCDs abroad has led to insights on the NCD burdens we face at home. For example, hypertension research with African populations has helped illuminate how hypertension in African American populations is largely driven by social and not genetic risk factors. Another example is in the treatment of lupus, a painful autoimmune disease that affects up to 1.5 million Americans. It happens that some of the most effective treatments for lupus are anti-malarial drugs.The histories of both domestic and global health R&D are filled with examples of discoveries and technologies that start down one road and turn down another. It’s increasingly clear, however, that the R&D landscape is changing, and these roads will need to merge into a multilane highway of science and discovery. In the domestic health lane, the increasing number, novelty, and ambit of infectious and vector-borne disease outbreaks are driving investment in global health security and vector-borne disease research; in the global health lane, the increasing burden of NCDs in low- and middle-income countries is adding to the call for universal health coverage.Throughout the Rally for Medical Research, in four meetings with congressional staff and two meetings directly with members of Congress, we repeated these points alongside patients, family members, and friends who had direct experiences with pediatric cancers, rare diseases, and other devastating conditions. No facts or figures are as compelling as hearing the voice of someone who has direct experience with a condition, and so we were worried whether our talking points about R&D for diseases many Americans have never seen firsthand would sway congressional staff, members of Congress, and our fellow advocates—but every person listened. By the end of the day, we could tell the other advocates thought our stories strengthened, rather than detracted from, our shared advocacy message about the need for more investment in NIH. When our group finished the last meeting on our original schedule, a few other advocates approached GHTC and asked if we would be willing to participate in one more after-hours meeting with another member of Congress—and of course, we stepped up to join them.Too often in global health we cubbyhole ourselves and miss opportunities to work with our domestically focused advocacy counterparts who share our same fundamental goal: to improve human health and well-being. Many of these opportunities offer mutual benefit—and combined, our arguments are stronger. In the future, the GHTC US advocacy and policy team will continue to look for moments when we can stand with our fellow domestic R&D advocates as we did on that brisk morning. Like in R&D, the best progress often comes from working together.

The Trump administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2020 (FY20) includes cuts that—if enacted—would hamstring the research and development (R&D) of new global health technologies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Department of Defense (DoD). Since the release of the budget request in early March, however, lawmakers from both parties have expressed their commitment to shielding these critical funding strings from the president’s scissors.Among the proposed cuts is a 12 percent reduction for NIH. On April 11, the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee (LHHS) held a hearing to review the budget request for NIH. From the beginning, it was clear the administration’s proposal would face bipartisan pushback. Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO), in his opening remarks, said, “I'm disappointed, of course, that the 2020 budget request would cut the agency by 13 percent. I'm confident that this committee will not do that, but we'll talk to you today about the reasons that we should continue in the direction we're in rather than head in another way.”Chairman Blunt was followed by Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA), who delivered an even stronger rebuke: “At a time of remarkable possibility in medical research, a time where we can and should continue leading the world in medical discovery, the Trump administration wants to cut funding for NIH… President Trump's damage -- damaging budget is wildly out of step with the sentiments of Congress, thankfully, and the American people. And I feel confident, working with our Chairman, that we will once again reject it.”Later in the hearing, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who serves as Chairman of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, also voiced his support for an NIH funding increase:“What you do is more important than most [of] what we do in America. I'm not interested in cutting your budget. I'm interested in increasing it…I think this is a great investment for America, for the world, for humanity, what you do… it's not only a financial investment, which is good for the economy. It is the leading scientists, the cutting edge of scientific research that you add. And we all benefit from it immensely.”The week prior, the House Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee had held their hearing on the NIH budget. Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said that Congress would reject proposed funding cuts to the NIH. In her opening statement she emphasized the value of scientists’ work: "Funding [biomedical] research has the power to do more good for more people than almost anything else within the purview of this subcommittee.”Referring to the administration’s newly launched effort to end the transission of HIV and AIDS in the United States, Chairwoman DeLauro continued: “Decades of research supported by NIH led to the development of the very treatment and prevention approaches that have put achieving this goal within reach, specifically antiretroviral therapy and PrEP. The NIH must be involved, if we are to continue to make progress in reducing HIV and AIDS, domestically and abroad.”In other budget hearings, lawmakers focused on important funding sources for global health R&D outside of NIH—including the DoD. In the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the US Army budget on April 9, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Vice Chair of the Subcommittee and Co-chair of the House Global Health Caucus, pressed the Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff about proposals to divert funding from malaria vaccine research funded by the US Army: “Given that malaria remains the number one infectious disease threat for troops deployed in these regions, and we know that we have issues with [treatment] compliance, whether it’s State Department, military, even Peace Corps volunteers because of the side of effects from these diseases, it remains critically important that the Army’s research on malaria vaccines continue. I’m concerned in the FY20 budget that the justification appears that the funding for the project that conducts malaria vaccine research is being realigned into other projects. Given nearly all the most effective widely-used anti-malarials were developed in part by the US military research team, I find the possibility of losing momentum in research extremely alarming.” With the ongoing outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ebola is another infectious disease high on lawmakers’ radar. On March 14, the Senate Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee held a hearing on the Ebola outbreak in DRC and other emerging health threats. Subcommittee Chairman Blunt’s (R-MO) opening statement emphasized, “It is clear that our investments to improve global health have a direct impact on the wellbeing of every American.” He highlighted recent funding increases he has championed for the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CDC, and the Global Health Security Agenda. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) also expressed his support for global health research: “If you wanted to look at the most important room in Washington, DC, when it comes to medical research over the last few years, it would be this room, this subcommittee. Under the leadership of Chairman Blunt and Senator Murray, we have seen for four straight years a 5 percent increase and real growth at the NIH. I think an overall 30 percent over that period of time, the 5 percent real growth each year. Increases to the CDC I wish were equal, but they had been good. We hope they'll get better in the future. I reject the President's budget out of hand. This notion of 12 percent cut to the NIH is just unacceptable and I think most Democrats and Republicans would agree.”In addition to defending investments in biomedical R&D, lawmakers have expressed support for funding for international aid and development—which would be cut by 24 percent under the President’s budget proposal. On February 27, the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on USAID Programs and Policies. In her opening statement, Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) emphasized the value of USAID, stating, “Failing to maintain our position as the leader in global development and humanitarian assistance will cost lives, risk the spread of infectious diseases, and reduce American influence around the world.” Included in the budget proposal is a US$1.35 billion reduction to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In response, several lawmakers vigorously defended the United States’ role in addressing the international HIV and AIDS epidemic. On March 6, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “I'm particularly opposed to cuts in funding for global AIDS programs. There's a 22 percent cut in PEPFAR used to treat millions internationally, mostly in Africa.” Later that month, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) also defended PEPFAR: “The administration has maintained most Africa focused aid initiatives launched by previous Congresses, and in some cases have sought to fund them, however at far lower levels. These include the global President's Emergency Plan for AIDS or PEPFAR…and I'm glad that those initiatives have continued but concerned about the cuts in funding. I will conclude by stressing…that US relations with Africa has always enjoyed bipartisan support here in Congress, and we expect to continue to work together. Each time the administration has sought to reduce funding, the State Department or USAID, especially those that would impact African countries, we have worked together in a bipartisan manner to restore that funding.”In early April, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) again affirmed his belief “in development as a way to advance American interest and security that’s rooted firmly in our values.” In reaction to the President’s budget proposal, he noted that, “Tuberculosis and malaria and AIDS patients all around the world” would be pushed aside by the “heartless and harmful approach to foreign policy.” The Trump administration’s budget request, if enacted, would slash funding for lifesaving research, development, and implementation of new global health technologies. Fortunately, lawmakers, with support from advocates, have diligently opposed these cuts. It’s our job to ensure this continues.