Pitt experts say federal research cutbacks contribute to waste |

Pitt experts say federal research cutbacks contribute to waste

The federal government could waste millions of research dollars on such things as preventing terror attacks and disease outbreaks because of recent funding cuts, experts said ahead of a national conference at the University of Pittsburgh this week.

Pitt lost about $1.2 million and cut 10 researchers from its emergency preparedness programs because of federal cutbacks, said Margaret A. Potter, professor of health policy and management. Her work is part of a national effort since 1999 to bolster emergency preparedness, but that first generation of research will be hard to implement if the federal government continues cutting such programs, experts said.

About $900 million was cut from disaster preparedness funding in fiscal 2011, some of that in research, according to a memo from Columbia University researchers.

“I think it’s terrible. I think it’s cutting in one of the areas where we can least afford cuts,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, which is not affiliated with any of Pitt’s programs.

Federal disaster preparedness research programs at Pitt get about $400,000 in direct federal funding plus a share of another $2 million in federal funds designated for its Models of Infectious Disease Agents Study (MIDAS) National Center of Excellence. The center is hosting a conference that began Monday and continues through Wednesday for researchers and policymakers to consider the future of research for public health systems’ emergency planning.

The funding cuts have been part of a more widespread effort from Congress to cut deficit spending, experts said.

Ali S. Khan of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed Monday that research for hard data is key to emergency preparedness. The agency cut its annual preparedness spending from $1 billion to $600 million. Some of the money reshaped national and local programs to fight anthrax and flu outbreaks and boost vaccinations, he told about 65 people at the conference’s opening session at the University Club in Oakland.

“(Now) it’s not just turning research into practical improvements, it’s (about how) to continue to sustain the capacity we have at the state and local governments and at the CDC to be prepared for these things,” Khan, director of the CDC’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, said later.

Potter said her research program, less than half finished, is charting emergency preparedness laws in every state and the federal government to find out which governments are maximizing capabilities.

Federal money and university research also support a wide range of other local programs that county-based agencies don’t have the resources to maintain, said Wes Hill, chairman of Western Pennsylvania’s joint terrorism task force and director of Beaver County Emergency Services.

“The timing of (the conference) is quite deliberate. It’s a time when the federal government is rethinking its priorities,” Potter said. “To pretend you can invest in preparedness for eight years or 10 years and then you don’t have to continue investing in it any more is a fallacy.”

Timothy Puko is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7991 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.