S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Billions of dollars in medical research are at risk amid Trump's cuts. Today , a panel of scientists will join us to talk about how that may impact their research. I'm Jade Hyndman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired and engaged. San Diego is a hub for biomedical research , but scientists fear funding cuts could change that.
S2: We do , you know , really important work that helps everyone. And I'm very nervous for public health and and that impact.
S1: What this could mean for the next generation of scientists and even the local economy. That's ahead on midday edition. The Trump administration continues to make significant funding changes to medical research , which has now been hampered across the country , including here in San Diego. So this hour , we'll discuss the impact on medical research and what this could mean going forward. Our panelists today include Sarah Lemaire , an assistant professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine. Sarah , welcome. Thank you. Also with us is Kiyomi Kumari , senior director of translational medicine at University Bio. Kiyomi , welcome to you too.
S3: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
S1: Glad to have you also. Liana Rossetto , a biomedical graduate student researcher at UC San Diego. Liana , it's great to have you on as well.
S2: Excited to be here.
S1: It's great to have you all here. And before we get to our conversation , a disclaimer all opinions expressed today are their own and not that of their employers. Okay. So let's let's have you all briefly talk about your research. Sarah , I'll start with you.
S4: And so most of what I do is trying to understand the mechanisms that allow the virus to hide throughout the body. And , you know , the eventual goal is to be able to not just treat HIV , but also to get rid of it. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Very important work there.
S2: Specifically , I'm studying right now how different types of diet can influence and maybe even be protective in Alzheimer's disease with the eventual goal of , you know , developing dietary memetics or drugs that might mimic a diet without the intensive ness of going on a strict diet regimen in order to treat Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Wow.
S1: Wow. And recently , just today , I heard that there was a medical breakthrough with Alzheimer's. Something about a protein and being able to delay it in like 40 year olds and 50 year olds if they , you know , when you get it early.
S2: So I don't actually know about this specific breakthrough , but there definitely is a lot of emerging , uh , drugs , uh , to hopefully treat Alzheimer's disease. But at this point , to my understanding , there is no cure for Alzheimer's disease. There's no way to reverse the pathology. And it is a 100% fatal disease still today.
S1: Underscores the necessity for more research. Kiyomi , you're at University bio.
S3: So in my role in translational medicine at Iniquity , we are trying to do is develop therapies for patients living with asthma , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , and eosinophilic esophagitis. And my job there is to help us understand how the drugs that we're developing work , and how to help us target them to the patients that are going to best respond to them.
S1: Wow , very important work you all are doing. And still the NIH funds much of the medical research across the country.
S4: So some of the funding mechanisms that I was planning to apply for have been eradicated. And so , you know , I've had to pivot to kind of other types of funding mechanisms. Additionally , there's been a blackout of the Federal Register. And what that means is that , um , when grants get reviewed , they have kind of two phases. There's a study section , and then there's a council meeting to determine if they're going to be funded. And before either of those meetings can happen , the meeting has to be published in the Federal Register two weeks prior at least. So they did just reboot the Federal Register. And so we are starting to have study section meetings again. But we had a blackout for a couple of months. And so that has delayed something like 15,000 grant reviews.
S1: Oh my goodness. And your position is funded entirely by the NIH.
S4: That's correct. All of my salary is funded by the NIH. Wow.
S1: Wow. And , Lianna , I'm sure you're seeing a similar impact on your work as a student researcher.
S2: And so training grants and other grants that go to trainees , for example , like graduate trainees. These are all , um , being either , uh , slashed or the opportunities that would have been posted are being retracted. And so I think that's really scary in terms of funding , um , younger researchers. And additionally , we're also seeing um , graduate programs reducing their admissions for incoming graduate researchers. Um , and some of them have even started retracting admissions to students who had previously gone in. And so overall , kind of the graduate student body as a whole , um , is really being hurt , um , both in terms of funding , but also just in terms of number of positions available.
S1: Um , and Kiyomi , a lot of the focus has been on how academic institutions will be impacted , but we could also see the consequences bleeding into the private industry , too.
S3: However , there are a lot of early stage startup companies or early biotechs that do apply for grant money , and that does help them continue their research. I think where we also have a lot of concern is that as you cut that basic research , you're really going to start impacting those fundamental biology and medical discoveries that drive drug development. Over 99% of drugs that were approved between 2010 and 2019 came from basic research funded by the NIH and NSF. The industry , while we do spend a lot of money to help study how the drugs are working and make sure they're safe and effective , we don't put as much focus onto that early basic discovery research and the innovation , and I think that that's where we think we're going to start seeing impacts as the innovation that the US has really driven for many , many years. With that loss of funding , those researchers are going to go elsewhere and the US will not be at the forefront of innovation the way it was in the past.
S1: It really goes to show the relationship between local research institutions and biotech and pharma , right ? Yeah. Yeah. Sara , there are also indirect costs that could be affected by these cuts. The Trump administration is attempting to put a 15% cap there.
S4: So that includes buildings utilities. It also includes administrative support because to do what we do you know we can't just do the science we need uh , people who are taking care of our labs , who are , you know , making sure that everything's being ordered appropriately , that our grants are getting in. Ironically , you know , we need them as an administrative support to submit grants. Um , so that's , uh , Problematic. A 15% cap is going to be extremely detrimental. You know , most universities have a predetermined rate that they negotiated with the NIH , and for example , UCSD was 59%. So that's going to be a pretty dramatic loss of funding if that cap is allowed to go forward. Um , the university already came out and said that they stand to lose somewhere along the lines of $150 million per year. Wow.
S1: Wow. Liana , as someone currently working in a lab , do you have anything to add to that ? Yeah.
S2: I just want to emphasize what Sarah said , that this indirect cost , I think , is often thought to go to some kind of bloated admin , but I definitely think that's a misconception that the public has about indirect costs. Overall , they're really going to fund kind of typical jobs like admin staff , custodial staff , construction staff. Just typical San Diegans who , you know , depend on these jobs for their livelihoods. And I think , you know , they're going to be the ones who might feel the effects of these cuts most directly. And first.
S3: One other piece to add to the indirect cost , too. As a working in biotech , I do a collaborate a lot with academic researchers , and when we write those contracts , industry also pays those overheads. And again , they're critical pieces. A lot of institutes also use them to fund core facilities that are shared between the labs that the labs couldn't support on their own. Those a lot of those facilities , you know , are multi-million dollars of worth of equipment that , you know , are shared asset for the institute that are supported by index.
S1: You know , you're all involved in critical work that helps us better understand these diseases and find the treatment for them. If all these studies were to be halted or just done away with altogether.
S3: You know , we saw that with a Covid 19 pandemic that was a new to US virus , but it wasn't a new class of viruses. And the reason we were able to respond so quickly was because we had a lot of research that had been done , and so we knew how to understand what was happening. You know , there were certainly fits and starts along the way. And as scientists , we don't always get things right the first time. And but we pivot and we evolve. And I think without that infrastructure , we would not have had the development of vaccines at the speed that we did. And it's certainly wasn't the first pandemic. It's certainly probably not going to be the last. And there's all kinds of new health threats that are coming out beyond viruses. As you know , things get warmer and environmental pollutants go in different directions. Um , you know , we really need that infrastructure.
S1:
S4: You know , and this , this this doesn't just tie into scientific funding. You know , we've also had , um , the issue of shutting down USAID. And , um , since I work in HIV , it's kind of on the forefront of my mind because , uh , USAID , USAID , and also PEPFAR , um , which is responsible for dispensing all of these antiretrovirals in developing countries are , you know , they have been very handicapped. So we're losing the innovation side of HIV cure research as well as vaccine research. And also , um , you know , better therapeutics. So that's going to decrease the quality of life for people with living with HIV , and I'm only talking about HIV right now. But it's also going to impact access to medications and therapeutics worldwide for HIV. And that's going to be true for probably , you know , every devastating disease you can think about , you know , especially things like cancer and heart disease , the list goes on. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. You know , in the Trump administration may cut all funding for the CDC's HIV prevention division.
S4: Um , so I worry that we aren't going to have the same kind of response , not just to HIV , but to , uh , viruses in general. You know , it actually stands to reason that a lot of the infrastructure we had for the Covid 19 response was built off of what we had done for HIV. So getting rid of , you know , all of this funding and all of these programs is going to severely blunt our response to new pathogens coming in. And there may be some that are similar to HIV that we won't be able to respond to as quickly as well. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. And Leona , I want to bring you in here because you were actually part of a clinical trial that was funded by the NIH for a rare disease. Tell me about that and how these trials could be affected. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. So I am an individual living with a rare autoimmune disorder. I have an undiagnosed rheumatology sickle disorder. And it developed about ten years ago when I was in college. And we had a very difficult time , you know , trying to figure out what was going on and , and get me care. So I joined the Undiagnosed Disease Network , which is funded by the NIH. And because of that , I was able to find a treatment plan and go into full remission. And that's why I'm here today studying disease myself. I would not be here without that NIH funded study. I might still be sick and rare disease specifically , I think is going to be hurt. I mean , everything is going to be hurt by what's happening. But rare disease specifically is going to be hurt as well. It's already so challenging to study rare illnesses , but we're getting better all the time. And this is just going to , you know , halt people with diseases that we don't have diagnoses for or treatments for , or even cures for , you know ? Yeah , I think clinical trials are definitely one of the things that are at risk. But clinical trials are also the best weapon we have against diseases we can't treat yet. If we can't , you know , have clinical trials , we we can't progress medicine. So that really makes me nervous. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. I mean , I hear you all talk and like the impact of these cuts could be detrimental. What are your thoughts on these cuts and and even like why they're happening.
S3: And on its surface , that sounds like a very reasonable thing. And , you know , I don't think you'd find any one of us to say we don't. We disagree with trying to eliminate waste. I think that the US government operates in a very broad way , in a very regulated and very regulated spaces. And , um , you know , maybe spending time understanding what those budgets are really going to and what they're really supporting and how much of it is really , you know , quote unquote , wasteful or not. You know , you have to take sort of more of a scalpel to something that than a chainsaw , let's say. And , you know , maybe an an approach that worked or doesn't work , depending on who you ask. In in Big Tech isn't necessarily the right approach to take with large government agencies.
S1: Sarah , your thoughts.
S4: Probably just mostly echoing what Kiyomi just said. Um , I think that a lot of the things that are being cut here are not well understood by the people making those decisions. And , uh , you know , they're they're not wasteful things. Um , they are essential things. And , uh , to to me , it feels very shortsighted. Liana.
S1: Liana.
S2: I just want to add that overall , it makes me really nervous for public health and and the public impact that this is going to have. I think there's overall , um , a kind of a science is a big black box for most of the public. And I think us as scientists can , can do a better job communicating what we do on a day to day basis and where these resources are actually going. Um , and I think it's fair that people are confused about why science costs so much money , but ultimately we do , you know , really important work that helps everyone. And I'm I'm very nervous for public health and and that impact.
S1: Coming up , we continue our conversation with the broader impact of funding cuts , especially to the next generation of scientists.
S3: Science doesn't just mean working at the bench. Scientists spread out across so many different places that touch our lives and human health that I think if we don't have well qualified trainees , that's going to get harder and harder to do in the future.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. We've been talking about how the Trump administration's new policies and funding cuts could impact science across San Diego. I'm here with my guest , Sarah Lemaire , assistant professor at UCSD School of Medicine. Kiyomi Kumari , senior director of translational medicine at Unity Bio , and Liana Rosado , a biomedical graduate student researcher at UCSD. So we've been talking at length here about what these cuts could mean for medical research. What are you hearing from your peers in how these attacks on science are affecting them ? Liana. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. Oh my gosh. We are very afraid for our futures. And , you know , the futures of the graduate students who are currently applying or the , you know , young high schooler and college students who want to be scientists in the future. It is so uncertain right now. And , you know , we all go into this field just because we want to , you know , better public health and and better science and , you know , ideally make the world a better place. And right now , it just feels like an impossible obstacle to surmount. And for myself , I'm going to be on the job market in a year or two , and I just don't know what that's going to look like. And it's really scary to think about maybe needing to leave the US , where I've spent my entire life and where I want to make changes here , but I might have to leave to just get a job. And that's really unfortunate , Kiyomi.
S3: It's personally , it's hard not to take it personally a little bit when we've dedicated so much of our time and our lives to really doing research , because we want to help people. Most people that go into science don't do it just for funsies. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of dedication. And I think what I personally worry about for the future is exactly what I was saying is that , you know , as we turn people away because we are cutting funding , there are going to be fewer qualified trainees to do the jobs that will get us to better and safer and monitored therapies and medicines for people. It's not just people that go into the bench and make the drugs. You know , you need people with PhDs and scientific background to review them and work at the NIH. You need them to be able to go out and do hunt down viruses and things like that. So science doesn't just mean working at the bench. Scientists spread out across so many different places that touch our lives and human health that I think if we don't have well-qualified trainees , that's going to get harder and harder to do in the future. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. I mean , it sounds like this will really affect the next generations of scientists.
S4: We are already starting to see what they call the brain drain. So France and Canada are both soliciting scientists from the US to go there. Um , there's one university in France that has already gotten 40 US researchers from very prestigious institutions , including Yale and the NIH and George Washington University. So literally everybody I know in science is petrified. We're all very worried about our own positions , about that of young researchers , which , by the way , they're where all the innovation comes from. It's really from the young researchers. And we're going to lose them. You know , they're they're not going to go into science. Those of us that are already in science are thinking about whether we need to leave the country. That's not going to end well for the US.
S2: I just want to add one additional point. Um , is that the the future scientists that are really going to be hurt the most by this are those that are already underrepresented in science. There are so many government funded efforts to increase diversity and representation in science. It gives students without opportunity , but with lots of , you know , brilliance and potential. It gives them the opportunity to access research at high quality universities and prepares them to be excellent scientists. And those programs are being sloshed across the board. And we need these scientists to help us do better , more representative biomedical research. And we're going to lose them , especially. And and I think that's going to hurt us as well.
S1: And , you know , I think what I'm hearing is and what we know is that the Trump administration is attacking what it calls Dei or diversity , equity and inclusion. We're seeing it in a federal list of banned words put out by the National Science Foundation.
S2: So some of the words that the NIH does not want us to use in grants anymore , and they'll even , you know , remove grants from the pile before considering them. If you include these words include women , black and Hispanic women. And black and Hispanic Americans are almost twice as likely as a white and male Americans to get Alzheimer's disease. But now we're not allowed to study the specific vulnerabilities of these populations , and that means we're not going to be able to address , um , the , the , the cause of Alzheimer's across the board and be able to treat everyone with Alzheimer's. Sarah.
S1: Sarah. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. So , um , at the very beginning , I alluded to a funding mechanism that I had to pivot from , and I didn't get into specifics , but that was actually what's called a diversity supplement. So I have a trainee that I was going to try to fund with that supplement , and they just completely eradicated diversity supplements from the NIH. You know , that's been a fixture there for years. And so , um , you know , we're facing the loss of , uh , you know , underrepresented groups in science. We're also , you know , like Leanne alluded to , we're losing the ability to study conditions in underrepresented groups as well. And that includes women. We make up over half of the population , but we are actually very understudied. And that's why we're called underrepresented. We're obviously not a minority , but. Right. But we are underrepresented in medical research and in science. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. And I was just about to bring that up because I feel like we're just now getting to a point where women are actually being researched , um , for medical breakthroughs. And , I mean , can you believe that when they put Tylenol on the market , they never tested that on women to see how that might impact women so many years ago ? So we're just now getting to that point. How do you all see this impacting that kind of research ? Kiyomi.
S3: Yeah , I think it's going to have a huge impact in the clinical space. You know , the FDA had put out guidance a couple of years ago around having better representation in more diversity within clinical studies. And it's so important , you know , as we touched on , women , women are disproportionately impacted by autoimmune disease. And there is underlying biology that there's a reason for that. Right ? We don't really understand what that is. But if we don't test medicines in a broad group of people , we will not know who they're going to work well for and their and who they won't. And we already know that of all the advanced therapies coming through that are breakthroughs and making huge differences in people's lives. Not a single one of them works for 100% of the people that take them. In a lot of cases , you know , if you get 30 or 40% of your study population responding , that's a huge success. But when you really dive into it , a lot of times those study populations in the clinical studies are not very diverse. And then when you start taking it out into real world , we start finding out that there is again , underlying biology because of our background , ethnicity , because of our gender , because of the region of the world we live in and our environmental exposures. And so if we're not giving equal access across the boards , you're not going to have things that are going to work in a fair way for everyone. And unfortunately , I think if you don't push and put things in place to encourage people to do the work , to make sure that it's representative , unfortunately the research and years of this will show , right ? It's not going to happen because in some cases it is. It is hard and it takes extra effort , especially in Populations who have been discriminated against or marginalized against. And there is , you know , some unfortunate history in the scientific drug development space where things happened that should not have happened. And we can't ignore that. But it does put a hurdle there. And even just knowing that you need to be telling people about clinical studies , right ? You have to be out there. You have to be educating the clinicians and everybody and saying , you know , make this an opportunity for all of your patients.
S4: I don't want to clarify something going back to the quote unquote banned words list , um , the NIH , from what I was told , did not receive the same guidance , but they are still kind of picking out a lot of those words in grants and putting them at the bottom of the pile if they see them.
S1:
S4: And the National Science Foundation will tend to fund kind of other topics. And that can include things like computer science advancements. Um , it can include things like , uh , you know , other aspects of biology that are not human based. Um , so , for example , I recently served on an NSF panel , actually , and we had some interesting grants on trying to understand antibodies and all of these different species. And you might look at that and say , well , how is that useful ? But actually , you know , some of these are potential treatments , um , for , you know , certain pathogens that humans get. And so they are useful. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. I mean , and I want to bring up another example we're seeing , you know , we're whole pages in data on the CDC's website are being scrubbed. Some of that has since been re-uploaded , but scientists are still worried that the new data has been corrupted. It's like these communities that are already underrepresented are being censored or erased. And I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.
S3: I mean , personally , I find it horrifying , right ? I think that we can't.
S1: We yes.
S3: We we shouldn't be deleting things because of of words that we find objectionable or out of line with our , our policies. Facts are facts and scientific facts are proven or , you know , at least hold until we prove them wrong. And I think limiting people's access to that kind of information is really dangerous. I also think we probably , as a whole , need to do better about teaching new generations and even reteaching older generations about critical thinking skills and how to tell when something is factual and when something isn't , and when a source is reliable versus not.
S1: Sarah , you look like you want to add something.
S4: No , I am just mostly nodding in agreement. Yeah. Horrifying was the exact word that popped to mind when you asked that question. Um , just , you know , I never thought in my lifetime that I would see that happen in this country where we're we're literally scrubbing away history just because it was not white men. That that's bizarre. Mhm.
S1: Still ahead the economic hit to San Diego.
S4: I can see just enormous impacts to the local economy because the life sciences here it was 178,000 jobs in San Diego in the county rely on life sciences.
S1: KPBS midday edition is back after the break. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. We're continuing our conversation about what the Trump administration's funding cuts and related orders could mean for science in San Diego. My guests are Sarah Lemaire , assistant professor at UCSD School of Medicine. Kiyomi Kumari , senior director of translational medicine at University Bio , and Liana Rosato , a biomedical graduate student , researcher. And Sarah , I want to talk more about the broader impact of these cuts.
S4: Yeah. So I see it trickling down. Uh , you know , Kiyomi mentioned that you may not see anything happening in the biotech sector right away , but a lot of the innovation comes from academic institutions that are funded by the NIH and the NSF. And so as we lose funding to those institutions and we lose people to other countries , the science is going to slow down , the advancement is going to slow down. And a lot of these private companies that have collaborations with publicly funded institutions , either in San Diego or elsewhere , um , are going to dry up. They're not going if they don't have new drugs to explore , how are they going to have clinical trials ? Um , so I can see just enormous impacts to the local economy , because the life sciences here , I think it was 178,000 jobs in San Diego in the county rely on life sciences , um , and , uh , you know , in 2023 , I think that added up to something like $56.6 billion. So we have a tremendous reliance on science. And San Diego , you know , not just at our academic institutions , but also we have all these biotech companies and pharmaceutical companies. You know , we are one of the premier spots in the United States for biomedical research and innovation.
S1: No question about that , Kiyomi.
S3: But , you know , Sara says Viacom California put out their Life Science 2024 economic Impact report. And , you know , the it is $56.6 billion of economic output that the life sciences brought to San Diego in 2023. And on top of that , it's as part of that , it's $17.6 billion of labor income. So that's income that people are able to put back into their communities to be able to thrive within San Diego. Um , I think the long term effects of this and also the instability within the market right now , because we don't know , biotech investment is something that we're all beholden to. And I saw a number today. It's something like $172 billion gap. Or I think I'll have to fact check that. But a research that would be done if we could find the funding. And that's a lot of funding that would go to bringing new new drugs to market. And , you know , biotech is a risky investment. And so as we pivot away from science , that's going to become riskier and riskier , and we'll probably end up seeing less private dollars moving in to support that space as well.
S1: Um , are there hiring freezes at UCSD right now ? Yeah. How many people does I mean , how short staffed were you ? I don't know how many people are impacted by that.
S4: Oh my gosh , I don't have the numbers. I know that UCSD supports something like 20,000 employees. Um , and we're obviously going to be losing some of them , but I don't know , off the top of my head.
S1:
S2: And we have a very large military population and veteran population in San Diego. And if we can't study post-traumatic stress disorder because trauma is one of the censored words , we're also going to be , you know , not able to better support our veterans. And that will also harm our local San Diego community.
S1: Are so many impacts. I mean , it is an incredibly uncertain time for science.
S2: I'm a trainee. Um , I'm hoping that , you know , things will improve and that I can continue on and do my science. I'm , you know , still tentatively optimistic , um , to , you know , be a scientist one day in academia. And I guess I'm just taking it one day at a time and trying to really just focus on the reason I got into science in the first place. And , and that's just to benefit public health and , you know , maybe cure Alzheimer's disease one day. Kiyomi.
S1: Kiyomi. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. I think , you know , despite all the headwinds , science is going to keep moving forward. I think the people that are doing it and are dedicated to it are going to keep pushing forward. It may look a little bit different for the next number of years , but it'll keep going. It's not you know , you're not shutting the door on it completely. I think the other thing that I'm seeing is a lot of the scientific associations are really stepping up and coming together to become those sources where we can do better about educating the public around what indirect are and what science is and how it works , and maybe also why it takes so long and cost so much money.
S4: Sarah , you know , like both Liana and Kiyomi said , I think it's really just what I do that drives me in the end. You know , I , I probably could have , um , you know , entered a different profession and possibly made more money with less training. Um , but , you know , I did what I did because I love it and because I think science is so important and so critical to the world. And so that's that's where I try to keep my focus. Um , if I spend too much time thinking about what's happening in the world around me and the havoc it's wreaking , it will bring me down. Um , but focusing on the science is what keeps me going.
S2: May I add one more thing ? So I think the second thing that I'm really focusing on is , you know , small acts of resistance. I think one of the , the biggest strengths of scientists is that , you know , we are creative. We can come up with creative solutions to solve problems. And I think this , um , censorship. This cut of funding , all the other kind of changes that are happening. Um , we just need to , you know , continue to be creative and come up with , you know , new solutions to continue to do the important work that we do. Um , you know , with these kind of additional restrictions and obstacles.
S1:
S2: He actually took the um , Department of Neuroscience chair , Doctor Brewer's , to the the recent um Congress address by Donald Trump. And I think that really shows that he at least is committed to supporting our cause. Um , I think that we definitely need , you know , a lot more support from our congressional leaders to really , you know , fight on behalf of scientists and public health. Um , but I do feel that from San Diego , we are being , you know , we're fighting the fight. Our representatives are really , you know , advocating for us in this space.
S1: What steps need to be taken to protect science going forward ? Sara.
S4: Obviously the the biggest obstacle here is funding , right ? So , um , like Hilmi said , I think that we have to focus on finding different ways to move forward , um , and maybe find ways that are less reliant on the federal government , which is feels sad to say , but I think that that might be our reality , at least currently. But , you know , we all need to be fighting for our congressional leaders and the federal government to understand the value of what we do. And that's really the bottom line. Kiyomi.
S1: Kiyomi.
S3: Yeah , I think a second all of that. I would also say that as leaders in science , we need to make science more accessible. We need to make it better understood. We we need to do a better job sharing what it means and the impacts that it has on people's daily lives. You know , scientists , admittedly , are maybe not always the best of explaining what we we do. We use a lot of acronyms and a lot of big words. But , you know , if we could get back to the roots and help people understand that this is going to have an impact on them and what it means to them or their grandmother or their aunt or their neighbor. Um , I think that is a way that we as scientists can , can do some things where , you know , I don't think we can go and fight all the big fights , but we're certainly all educators and we could be better community educators.
S1:
S2: It helps us do better research. It helps us get more creativity from , you know , all corners of the country and the world in the same room to solve really , really challenging problems. And so I really think that we need diversity , equity , inclusion and accessibility in science or , or else we won't be able to solve , you know , the most pressing biomedical health problems that we face today.
S1: And , Sarah , I'll let you have the last word here.
S4: So I think that Kiyomi is absolutely right. We need to do a better job of educating the public about what we do and why. And I think the thing to take home from this entire conversation is that we all know , or we even experience people who are suffering through chronic diseases , you know , having medical problems. And we can't treat those and find effective therapies and find ways forward to help people with them. Without scientific research. And that's that's really why what we do is so important.
S1: I've been speaking with Sarah Lemaire , assistant professor at UCSD School of Medicine , also with us , Kiyomi Kumari , senior director of translational medicine at University Bio , and Liana Rocio , biomedical graduate student researcher at UCSD. I want to thank you all for sharing your experiences and your insight today. Thank you so much.
S4: Thank you so much for having us.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
