October 1, 2025 • 37 mins
Due to President Trump’s sweeping federal cuts to medical research, many colleges and universities are faced with financial uncertainty. Why does the government want to make cuts to medical/science research? How worried are you about delays in potentially lifesaving research? UMass Chan Medical School Chancellor Dr. Michael F. Collins joined us on NightSide to discuss.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Lot's going on this week in Washington. I think all
of us know that the government has in a shutdown situation.
They have not updated or renewed. The fiscal year in
Washington runs out every year at September thirtieth at midnight
or October first at midnight. When September thirtieth turns into
(00:29):
October first. Right now is about twenty one hours and
seven or eight minutes ago, and we are going to
talk a little bit.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
About the shutdown. Later on.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
We will be talking about what services will be impacted,
what may be impacted in the long run, how long
we will have a guest at ten o'clock. We're not
here to talk about the shutdown this hour. We're here
to shut We're here to shut to talk about not
the shutdown, but cutbacks that the Trump administration is imposing
(01:03):
on medical research institutes, not just in New England but
around the country. And to talk about that is the
current chancellor. He's the longest serving chancellor in the history
of UMass chan Medical School. He was the interim chancellor
from June of two thousand and seven, around the time
I started doing this program to September twenty eight of
(01:25):
two thousand and eight. He was appointed chancellor in September
of two thousand and eight. He's a tenured professor of
Population and Quantitative Health Sciences in medicine. And we are
delighted to welcome doctor Michael Collins to the Nightside microphone.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Doctor Collins, welcome to Nightside.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
How are you, sir, evening Dan. I'm well, thank you,
and how are you?
Speaker 5 (01:46):
I'm okay, But like you, I am concerned about the
cutbacks that are going to impact medical facilities around the country.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Because this is not a partisan issue from my perspective,
it affects every American, whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, independent, libertarian, librarian, whatever.
And and it's something that that you mass.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Chan Medical School does a lot of a lot.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Of research dealing with, amongst other things, cancer, causes of cancer,
and potential cures for cancer and als Luke Gherrig's disease.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
How how concerned are you?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
You you on the front lines here, so from your
perspective as chancellor, how much government funding is at risk?
From what you know?
Speaker 3 (02:43):
And I don't.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
You may not know everything yet, but at this point
has the government communicated with you When I say the government,
I've talked about the Trump administration as to what what
limitations or what cutbacks however you want to characterize those
terms might want to impose on you, were school.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Based on today's actions are based on just issues in
regar in general. Let's look at it this way. Let's
look at this way, Dan. When when the budget for
the next year for the NIH the National Institutes of
Health was brought forward by the administration, they asked for
(03:22):
twenty seven billion dollars a number approximating twenty seven billion.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Dollars in cut.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Is that in cuts or is that what they were
looking for?
Speaker 4 (03:30):
No, that's what they were looking for, But that would
represent a cut of twenty billion dollars. Now, billions of
dollars are a lot of money, and you know, those
of us hear those numbers, they're just sort of you know,
they're just you know, they're just so big. But you know,
in relation to the federal budget of multiple trillions of dollars,
(03:51):
there's a relatively small fraction of the of the federal budget,
but it's an enormous fraction of the budget of teaching, hospitals,
and medical schools across the country not sort of set
the tables so people understand this. The American biomedical research
enterprise that which exists in the United States is the
(04:14):
finest in the world. Let's fact one, it's the finest
in the world. And there has been a greater than
sixty year commitment partnership, whatever you want to call it,
between the federal government, teaching hospitals, and medical schools. When
I say a partnership, what that means is that the
(04:36):
federal government in partnerships, in partnership with just about every
medical school and many of the large teaching hospitals. We
recruit the faculty. The faculty apply to the National Institute's Health,
the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
that our faculty apply for grants, and they work on
(04:58):
projects that are in the interest of science. And those
projects can be at the very molecular level where they're looking,
you know, almost at the level of the atom, to
try to find a way in which a new area
of an atom or a series of atoms together in
molecules could provide a target for a drug. That's one
(05:21):
thing all the way to as you mentioned, how neuro
degeneration or degeneration of the nerves occurs, causing als could
be pediatric brain cancer and in the In the in
the instance of the National Institutes of Health, there are
calls for faculty and medical researchers from across the nation
(05:44):
to apply for grants in particular areas aging, mental health, pediatrics,
infectious diseases, kidney diseases, gastrointestinal disease, you know, across the thing.
And what I I love about the NIH, and what
I think has been so important about the nation's biomedical
(06:06):
research enterprise is that it's a meritocracy. The best grant wins,
and so hundreds of grants would go into the NIH
and experts in that particular area would come together. That's
called a study section. The members of the study section
read the grants and they score them, and it's like golf.
(06:29):
Low score wins, And so if you get say a
twelve or a two on a grant and the pay
line is twenty, you're going to be funded. In almost
every instance, you're going to be funded. And what's happened
in the last since February, let's put it that way,
since February. What's happened since February is that there has
been a slowdown in the funding of grants, consideration of grants,
(06:56):
paying of grants. In essence, there's been a slow down
in the commitment the nation has made to biomedical research,
which could threaten it in the nation for generations. And
this is not a minor thing for Massachusetts because in
Massachusetts we have some of the finest teaching hospitals and
(07:19):
four of the finest medical schools which have been conducting
world breaking research. I mean, I just hope everyone would
recognize that a member of the faculty of UMass CHAN
is this year's Nobel Prize winner this year. Now that
will change on Monday when the next Nobel Prize is awarded.
(07:40):
But one year ago Victor Ambrose, a member of our faculty,
won the Nobel Prize, and that was our second Nobel Prize.
Craig Mellow had won the Nobel Prize in two thousand
and six, and so across the world. The biomedical research
enterprise is respected in Massachusetts and billions of dollars into
the state to faculty members and our institutions to conductor search.
(08:08):
And this is critically important to the economy of Massachusetts.
When one of our investigators so Let's say when doctor
Ambrose wins a grant, the typical that he's called the
principal investigator in that instance, he typically hires seven to
ten people. Now you do that across three hundred of
our faculty, that's you know, over two thousand people are employed.
(08:30):
And the multiplier the economic impact of UMASH Chair Medical
School in Massachusetts is over two billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Let me.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
You're thrown a lot at us here, okay, and I
want my audience to basically absorb it.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Here.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
The statistic that I found to be the most interesting,
and if I heard it incorrectly, help me, is that
last year, last fiscal year, there was about you said,
forty seven billion dollars spent on medical research funding by
the federal government across the country.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Was that an accurate characterization of what you said?
Speaker 4 (09:11):
That is accurate? And that this year and the budget
for this year is twenty eight billion and the twenty
years forty eight billion.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Okay, So we're talking about a significant drop twenty billion dollars.
But also that's done close to I guess you could
you could say it's a fifty percent drop when you're
talking about lopping off twenty million or so from forty
seven million.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
That's you know, you're talking about drop. Dramatic, Okay, dramatic.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
We also know we also know that in the federal budget,
which is a huge number, and I think the overall
budget now is somewhere around six trillion every year if
I'm not mistaken, And there's a lot of what they
call non discretionary spending social Security and programs Medicare and
Medicaid and things like that that have been promised they have.
(10:06):
They can trim here, they can trim there, but this
is in the discretion of the executive branch. So my
question is this, if we talk to every person or
any person in Massachusetts and said the Trump administration is
going to knock off twenty billion dollars, but twenty billion
(10:27):
dollars from a figure of forty seven, because the denominator
and the nominator are both important to come up with
a calculation and a.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Percentage, that's a big cut. That's a big cut.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Now, why do you think the Trump administration Are they
being influenced by Robert F.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Kennedy.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And I'm not looking to turn this into politics, but
I'm just under it just seems to me that when
we're talking about trying to find a cure for als,
everyone's affected potentially by a less doesn't matter who you
voted for, doesn't matter what your party affiliation. Why would
there be such a dramatic cut levied against this? Is
this something that you think President Trump is concerned about?
(11:13):
Are they people within his administration who was saying, here's
where we got to make some cuts.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Or do you know?
Speaker 4 (11:20):
I don't, I don't. I would like to believe that
the president doesn't have that opinion. That would be what
I would like to believe. But what we are told
when when you know, when folks interact, when the Congress,
when the NIH director went to the Congress to talk
about their request, he said, look, I'm here to establish
(11:45):
a partnership with with the Congress. We want to change
some of the priorities. We want to we want to
emphasize research that's reproducible. So in other words, if one
scientist gets a result, that another scientist can get the
result the name and he had a series of principles
(12:07):
like that, and I would you know, I would say,
so fair, fair game. New administration. They want to say,
we're going to have some priorities but what the members
of the Congress and the way this should work. The
members of the Congress said, well, doctor, we appreciate your here.
We appreciate you'd like to cut the We don't want
to cut the budget. We want the budget to be
(12:27):
forty eight billion dollars and we want you to spend
forty eight billion dollars. That's what we want you to do.
And he kept saying, well, that's why I'm here, and
it's a partnership. So when the appropriation committees in the
House and the Senate, which is how this works, sent
the numbers for next year up, they sent they sent
a number just a little bit north of forty eight billion.
(12:48):
And now, with everything that's going on down there today,
you said you're going to talk about it in the
next hour. You can review it then. Obviously lots of
things are confused. But what's happened since February now is
incredible amounts of uncertainty have come into place. Let me
talk about let me do this.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I'm gonna let you talk, but I got to take
a commercial break. By the way, the NIH director is uh.
He's a Stanford professor, Jay Patcharia Uh and smart guy.
I think everybody would agree with that.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
Why smart?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
And I'm trying to get him to come on the
show and defend those those cuts.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I've had him on before, but sometimes when you work
for the administration, they put a short leash on people.
My guest is doctor Michael Collins. He is the Chancellor
of the University of Massachusetts chan Medical University Medical School.
And we're talking about cuts. We'll take a quick break.
(13:50):
We'll be back if you'd like to join the conversation
six thirty or six one, seven ninety. I say, we
got a great topic, we got a great guest. All
we got to do is add callers and stir back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
My guest is Michael, doctor Michael Collins. He is the
chancellor the UMass Chain Medical School. We only get a
couple of minutes left until the break, and we will
get to some phone calls after the news at the
bottom of the hour.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Chancellor.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But I guess we can talk about the numbers, we
can talk about the cuts, but I don't understand why
the population, whether they're Trump supporters or not, would rise
up and say, hey, there's a lot of places that
you can cut. And we understand that cuts haveter we made.
We have a thirty seven trillion dollar deficit. But this
(14:45):
is the last place that cuts should be made, because
the research that your folks are doing on a new
mass and at other institutions might save us, might give
us an extra ten years of life or twenty years
of life, might save a parent, might save a child.
You guys, is it truly where the rough meets the road?
Speaker 3 (15:02):
And this is nuts.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I hate to use a technical term, but I have
no other way to describe it.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Couldn't grave with you more, Dan, And so the way
I look at this research brings hope to the human condition.
Think about it for a minute. If there's no hope,
it's impossible to get out of bed in the morning.
And our scientists are working on projects to try to
change the course of history of disease. And it could
(15:31):
be pediatric brain cancer as we've talked about als. It
could be in developing new devices and ways to treat people.
You know, I had a patient that had needed an
aortic valve replaced. We now do that with two half
inch decisions in the groin and you don't have to
open the chest anymore and the patient goes home in
(15:53):
a day. These are all things that came as a
result of research and.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
The ale US work that doctor Brown does at said,
I'm very familiar with that. By the way, that is
a disease that seems to strike more and more families
every year, that research will have to be cut.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
I assume, well, if it's not cut, it's certainly going
to be delayed. And if it's delayed, then then the challenge.
This is the This is where I was going to
That is what I was going to say. It the
just before we took the break, that we have scientists
now who are need to do critical experiments and the
funding has stopped, and we know, just just to just
(16:36):
to make it real for us, you know, we have
millions and millions of dollars of grants that we know
have been approved, but they have still not been that
you know, we still have not gotten the green light
from the NIH to go ahead and start to spend
those moneys. You know, we had to let go over
two hundred and fifty people in the spring. We had
to cut back our grad school class, and every institution
(16:59):
has made, you know, similar kinds of these actions, And
to me, it's just so disappointing because we have assembled
this incredible group of people committed to science, working on
very important projects, and through administrative inefficiency, through decision making,
(17:21):
that is not in the best interest of human being.
And you're quite right when you say, you know, disease
is not a partisans right.
Speaker 6 (17:29):
It just isn't.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
And I think that you're also extremely correct in my
opinion that I think you ask the average person on
the street, they say, hey, we want the nation to
invest in research because we know the difference it makes.
Just about every drug that a patient takes has come
as a result of research that was done with NIH funding.
(17:52):
And now to cast this uncertainty and doubt administrative inefficiency
is just wrong.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
I would have make one suggestion to you, and then
we're going to go to the nine to thirty newscast,
and then we're going to go to phone calls. There
are four United States Senators who are physicians. All four
of them are Republicans, Marshall of Kansas, Cassidy of Louisiana,
Paul of Kentucky, and Barrasso of Wyoming.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Bar is there any effort.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To reach those four and literally form a caucus that
will go up and get those four senators. I'm sure
could get a meeting directly with the President and say
this is something that is dead wrong and this has
to be reversed.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Mister President, Have you guys talked to them at all?
Speaker 2 (18:42):
And I'm when I say you guys, I mean you're
you're a very influential chancellor at a medical school, major
medical school. There are others around the country. I think
that those that the key to success might lie with
those four members of the US Senator.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well, actually, we got fourteen Republican senators to write to
the NIH. We did exactly what you said. We got
fourteen Republican senators and they gave that exact point that
we want NIH funded, We want the research money to
get out the door. This is a very high priority
for us, and you should act upon this immediately and
(19:18):
we shall see.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
But those fourteen senators have written to Badachari, dokedor Badachari
at the NIH.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
He has to be following what the top guy, Donald
Trump is telling him. I don't know, I'm just trying
to open up a different avenue.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
But that's not exactly not the way it works. When
the Congress appropriates the money, the administration is supposed to
minister that funding.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Oh, I know that, I understand. I understand the political process.
But the President obviously has intervened here, and it would
seem to me that someone needs to show him that
this is.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
This is folly, this is folly.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
I'm just opening up as a possibility a nice little
Oval office meeting with those four US senators, maybe you
and a couple of the other chancellor, you know, heads
of medical call it medical schools around the country might
produce quicker results. With a face to face with with
Donald Trump, he occasionally does change his mind.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Yeah, we'll see. I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
I know you are, and again I'm trying to help you.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
That's all. We're going to take a break.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
We got a nine thirty newscast and we've got callers
lined up on the other side. My guess is doctor
Michael Collins, Chancellor of the U mass Chan Medical School.
Let's keep going. The only lines that are opening right
now are six, one, seven, nine. We'll get to all
all the callers, I promise. Right after the news at
the bottom of.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
The hour, you're on Night Side with Dan Ray on
WZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
My guest doctor Michael Collins. He is the chancellor longtime
chancellor at the U mass chan Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Doctor Collins, I want to hear what people have to say,
and if there's any other quick comment you wanted to make,
I think you've you've articulated this dilemma very clearly.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
If not, we can just go right to the calls.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
I would make one out further point. We've had a
very important moment in Massachusetts. The governor has proposed four
hundred million dollars in state funds to bridge research gaps
which are being caused by the federal government. An extremely
important initiative. You know, there is that money that came
(21:29):
from the millionaire's tax and that could be used to
support the public institutions. It's because it's education and transportation,
and there is a way for people who want to say, hey,
I agree with Dan Ray, and we should support research.
And that's by supporting that that initiative, and the sooner
that money could get approved and out to our institutions,
(21:50):
the much better chance we have of keeping and retaining
and investing in our outstanding scientists is.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
That proposal language in the in the legislature.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
I don't know if I would say it's languishing.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Okay, let's put it.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Yeah, well that's fine.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Look, I understand you have to be a little political here.
I get that we don't want to a lot of
sensibilities that can't be offended. Let's uh, let's get to
phone calls here. First up is Stephen Bridgewater. Steve, you
were first a question or comment for doctor Michael Collins.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Go ahead, Steve, Yes, yes, I got a question for
the doctor. I know this might be a dumb question,
but I'm gonna go out on the ledge anyway. I
know research is involved, and it's very important, needless to say,
to do this kind of research. As a matter of fact,
I have a close friend that has als right now
and needs Every day he's deteriorating, he's getting worse, so
(22:44):
I don't know how much long he'll be around.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
But with that.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
Said, I think research is very important. But can I
ask this main question?
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Go ahead? Yeah, you've done the preface, let's do the question.
Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
Okay, why does research have to us billions of dollars?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
Great questions?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
And I know that doctor Collins is going to have
a good answer, doctor Collins, you got the question, well.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Ahead, Okay, so I got the questions. So we have
we have so just think about our medical school, uh,
just for a moment. So we have we in order
to do research, you need very highly complex technical facilities.
You have to you have to purchase incredibly expensive equipment.
(23:35):
You have to then bring the people. You have to
recruit the researchers that are going to come and do
the research, and the staff that they have. They have
to occur within an academic environment. So let me give
you an example. We have a we have some very
very precise, uh and delicate microscopes. When we got them,
(23:55):
they're called cryo EM cry on electron microscopy. When we
got ours, the next one was in Pittsburgh, and we
serve as a resource now to Massachusetts. We have four
of them now and so think of how the biomedical
research enterprise has blossomed in Massachusetts. We serve as a
(24:19):
resource to many entities. So it's actually you know, there's
collaboration and collegiality, so not everybody has to buy one
of these pieces of equipment. So in our instance, we're
a very research intensive institution. Now second point, think of
all of the requirements that we have with animal facilities,
(24:40):
radiation safety, the need for us to assure that there
is patient safety. So we have things called institutional review boards,
and these are all federal mandates appropriate by the way,
not complaining about them, but they're all extremely expensive. In
order to have a research protoc call, in order to
(25:00):
do it well, in order to assure that the science
is conducted appropriately, there's an enormous amount of oversight is done,
and then just the actual work of the scientists. It's
it's you know, it's not like our eighth grade biology
class anymore, where you know, you put a little put
a little cover slip on a slide and put it
(25:21):
under a microscope. These are these experiments are extremely expensive. Now,
I think one thing you can be confident about is
that there's an intense scrutiny of the request for money.
So when I said that these go to study section,
that there's a there's a process back and forth between
(25:43):
the study sections and the investigators to assure that whatever
moneys the government are going to invest are appropriate for
the science being done. And I think you should be
very confident that here in Massachusetts, with the incredible institutions
we have. There's enormous oversight over the enterprise, and the
money is extremely well spent. If you just look at
(26:06):
the economic multipliers, just if you just think about it
for me, how this supports the economy. There's all of
the entities in Kendall Square, in a long one twenty
eight that are involved in either drug discovery or device
development and who have their home in Massachusetts benefit from
(26:26):
the research done at our institutions.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
All right, Steve, I think that's a great question, and
I think you get an equally great answer, and I
thank you for the call.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Yeah, I think yes, I think that that answers the question.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Thank you, Thank you, Steve.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
A great night, be right back with more calls. My
name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside. My guess is doctor
Michael Collins, Chancellor of U mass chan Medical School in Worcester,
and he is I think bemoaning and rightfully bemoaning the
cuts in medical research that are being imposed by the
Trump administration. I don't understand why cutting medical research from
(26:59):
somewhere in the city of forty seven to forty eight
billion dollars a year down to the high twenties. It's
a huge cut and particularly a d mass which is
doing again cancer research and als. Just doctor Brown has
been amazing in terms of ALS research. And this is
(27:19):
the last thing in the federal There's a lot of
places to cut in the federal budget, but this is
not one of them in my opinion. Stephen Cambridge is next.
We got abby and new report as well, and if
you'd like to try, we'll try to get one more
or two more calls in as well. Doctor Collins will
be with us until nine fifty eight back on Nightside
after this.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
But I guess doctor Michael Collins, Chancellor of the University
of Massachusetts CHAN Medical School in Worcester. Stephen Cambridge is next. Steve,
welcome your question or comment for doctor Collins.
Speaker 7 (27:54):
Good easying Dan, doctor Collins, Doctor Collins. Around the year
two thousand, Branson Collins. I don't know if he's a
relative or not. Head of the Genome okay, head of
the Genome Project, mapped the human genome. Bill Clinton predicted
a complete revolution in medicine. Doctor Collins that Doctor Collins
(28:17):
said that within ten to twelve years they would have
all diseases mapped out, and the CUIST would begin rolling
out universities all over the country started building big stem
cell research facilities. I think there was a lot of exaggeration,
(28:38):
and I think a lot of it was to secure
billions and billions of dollars which have since disappeared. I
think there's a lot of careerism and politics in the
research establishment, and I think there's a lot of room
for cutting.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
How would you comment, Well, I think if you look
at what the doctor Collins was talking about, there have
been extraordinary discoveries made since the early two thousand. If
you just look at the discovery that doctor Mellow made
in RNA interference, that now has spawned numerous entities that
(29:17):
are making drugs. One in Massachusetts al Nylum that now
has I think it's four to eight products that come
directly from that technology. It's essentially it's like a Google
search for drug discovery. What doctor Mellow's discovery showed was
(29:38):
that a small RNA molecule can, like a Google search,
find a cell that in which it can interact and
it can actually it actually can treat a disease. I
think that's extraordinary accomplishment, and we've mapped now roughly seven
(30:01):
thousand rear diseases, and we have numerous scientists that are
working on trying to cure one of those rear diseases.
And you know, if your family's not affected by it,
then God bless you for that. But we deal with
lots of children and families, for instance, with canavan disease,
which you know, it's a big name and doesn't really
(30:23):
do much. But children, you know, for average persons, but
these children can't lift their heads of the off the mattress,
they can't feed themselves, they can't walk. And one of
our scientists discovered the gene with it was defective, has
now been able to deliver a gene therapy to patients,
and I can show you pictures of dozens of children
(30:43):
now with walkers but walking and their lives and the
lives of their family completely changed.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
I think the impression doctor, I think the impression Doctor
Collins wanted to make ways that the American public in
general would see how many many wide spread diseases tremendously cured.
And I think that was a lot of exaggeration on
his part. I'm not putting down all exaggeration, but I
(31:11):
think within the research establishment they often exaggerate and primarily
to secure massive amounts of federal funding.
Speaker 4 (31:24):
All Right, so we're just gonna we're just going to disagree.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Well, reasonable, reasonable people can disagree.
Speaker 7 (31:29):
We do it all the time, Heday, one more quick
point ahead. In nineteen seventy one, when Richard Nixon began
the War on cancer, the cancer establishment predicted that by
the by centennials nineteen seventy six, they would have cured cancer.
And they've been saying that ever since.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Okay, well, I don't think we should criticize them for trying,
that's for sure, Steve, Steve, thank you, thank you very much.
As you can see, not everybody is on the same
side of the street in this one politically, as are medically.
As you would hire Abby is in Newburyport. Abby, you're
on with doctor Michael Collins, Chancellor of the UMass chan Medal.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Right.
Speaker 8 (32:12):
Yeah, so I'm actually on your side. So I'm in
the same field, and I can breakface this by saying that, Yeah,
I've been in the healthcare healthcare provider for over thirty
years here in Massachusetts, and of course you know we
have the best research schools around the world. From Harbid
yourself to be you two toughs as you wear, Jana
(32:35):
fabraam I t and I'm sure as you are that
we received the Nobel Award for research. I believe it
was just this year. However, my questions are being on
that side. Uh cold, Do you think the schools could
use their endowments for research?
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Is number one?
Speaker 8 (32:57):
And number two is where do we cut from a
deficit in America? You know they always say, don't don't
come up with a problem with our resolutions. So where
could we cut to make up this deficit? Because America
doesn't want to be owned by any anyone else.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You're talking about the thirty seven trillion dollars in federal debt.
Speaker 8 (33:18):
Yeah, okay, fine that yeah. And then lastly, you know,
like I said, if it meant you couldn't feed your family, right,
but the kids wanted a baton lesson? Is that like research?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
So so a baton lesson in terms in terms in
terms of feeding your family and a baton lesson.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
There's a pretty significant difference there.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Research.
Speaker 8 (33:43):
I mean, where should we where should we cut? I understand, Oh, okay, we.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
Got the question.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Got the question, Abby, And if you stay right there,
doctor Collins, again, I don't expect you to pour over
the federal budget. But I'm sure there are other programs
in the federal budget that people people think are equally important.
But I don't think there's anything that compares to finding
cures for diseases that affect all of us indiscriminately, irrespective
(34:11):
of what political philosophy we might embrace.
Speaker 4 (34:15):
We just have a couple of reactions. First of all,
I don't think there are sides here. I think that
you know, people can respectfully disagree. I could tell the
prior caller about a patient that I took care of
in nineteen eighty that had testicular cancer, a twenty two
year old man who came into the hospital and was
dead in twenty four hours. That patient would get a
(34:38):
medicine today and would walk out of the hospital at
the end of the week completely cured. And and so that's,
you know, maybe not every cancer.
Speaker 8 (34:48):
I I agree with Norman, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
I'd let doctor Collins respond, Go ahead, doctor Collins.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
Normous strides. Now to the point of endowments, This one
comes up all the time and h and you know,
so the institutions with large, you know, large numbers, is
their endowments. Now, I think that what people have to
understand is when a donor gives a gift, particularly a
gift that goes to the endowment, it goes to a
specific purpose. So for instance, if we're going to have
(35:17):
the dan Ray Chair of Pediatrics and a person gives
a million five to our medical school, I can't take
the money in the dan Ray Chair of Pediatrics and
use it for als research because the donor has told
us exactly how that's going to be done. And when
that happens over and over and over again, then the
(35:37):
endowment grows up to a bigger number. Now our endowment is,
you know, quite a bit smaller, even though we've had
some great improve in the last five years. Our endowment's
gone up two hundred and fifty million dollars, largely due
to the generosity of doctor Chan and his family and
and and in the long run that's going to be
very helpful to the institution. But I do think there's
(35:58):
a bit of a misunderstanding a bit out university endowments.
Much of the money is specific purpose money, and it
can't be moved from one cause to another. We have
to honor the wishes of the donor. And and now
there are some donors that say, here, you can use
this for research, and we do. The other thing you
have to understand is endowments typically put out four to
(36:20):
five percent a year of money. So if you have,
you know, one hundred million dollar endowment, you know you
get four percent of that or four million dollars that
you can use per year because the endowment is meant to,
you know, sustain the institution over the long run. So
boards establish policies. So I do think that the numbers
(36:41):
get big and people just say, why can't you go
in and use the endowment, And the answer is you
can't because you have to honor the wishes of the donor.
Speaker 8 (36:48):
Right agree and thank thank you, thank you very much
for plaining that piece of it.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Okay, iby, Unfortunately we're flat out of time, but I
thank you for your call.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
It's a great question.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 8 (36:59):
Okay, thank you so much, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
All Right, to the callers in the line, you call
it a little late. Unfortunately, if you want to stay
they we're going to talk about a different topic on
the other side. But I want to thank doctor Michael Collins,
the chancellor of you mass Chan Medical School.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
I suspect a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
We convinced a lot of people that think about this
issue tonight, and I think most of them who think
about it are going to realize that we the last
place we should be cutting is medical research grants.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
So let's hope more.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
Dan, thanks so much for letting me have the time
to talk with you.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Absolutely, and if there's some progress on it, let me
know and we'll bring it back. Okay, thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (37:35):
Thank you very much, Michael Collins.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Chancellor at you mass chan Medical School. And thank god
that we have medical schools around the country. I'd like
to see us have more. We've talked about that. Back
on Night's side right after the ten o'clock news, we're
going to talk about the federal shutdown and it's implications
and how it might or might not end, and maybe
what sort of a timetable we might anticipate.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Be back on Nightside right after the ten o'clock news,
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Lot's going on this week in Washington. I think all
of us know that the government has in a shutdown situation.
They have not updated or renewed. The fiscal year in
Washington runs out every year at September thirtieth at midnight
or October first at midnight. When September thirtieth turns into
(00:29):
October first. Right now is about twenty one hours and
seven or eight minutes ago, and we are going to
talk a little bit.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
About the shutdown. Later on.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
We will be talking about what services will be impacted,
what may be impacted in the long run, how long
we will have a guest at ten o'clock. We're not
here to talk about the shutdown this hour. We're here
to shut We're here to shut to talk about not
the shutdown, but cutbacks that the Trump administration is imposing
(01:03):
on medical research institutes, not just in New England but
around the country. And to talk about that is the
current chancellor. He's the longest serving chancellor in the history
of UMass chan Medical School. He was the interim chancellor
from June of two thousand and seven, around the time
I started doing this program to September twenty eight of
(01:25):
two thousand and eight. He was appointed chancellor in September
of two thousand and eight. He's a tenured professor of
Population and Quantitative Health Sciences in medicine. And we are
delighted to welcome doctor Michael Collins to the Nightside microphone.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Doctor Collins, welcome to Nightside.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
How are you, sir, evening Dan. I'm well, thank you,
and how are you?
Speaker 5 (01:46):
I'm okay, But like you, I am concerned about the
cutbacks that are going to impact medical facilities around the country.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Because this is not a partisan issue from my perspective,
it affects every American, whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, independent, libertarian, librarian, whatever.
And and it's something that that you mass.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Chan Medical School does a lot of a lot.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Of research dealing with, amongst other things, cancer, causes of cancer,
and potential cures for cancer and als Luke Gherrig's disease.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
How how concerned are you?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
You you on the front lines here, so from your
perspective as chancellor, how much government funding is at risk?
From what you know?
Speaker 3 (02:43):
And I don't.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
You may not know everything yet, but at this point
has the government communicated with you When I say the government,
I've talked about the Trump administration as to what what
limitations or what cutbacks however you want to characterize those
terms might want to impose on you, were school.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Based on today's actions are based on just issues in
regar in general. Let's look at it this way. Let's
look at this way, Dan. When when the budget for
the next year for the NIH the National Institutes of
Health was brought forward by the administration, they asked for
(03:22):
twenty seven billion dollars a number approximating twenty seven billion.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Dollars in cut.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Is that in cuts or is that what they were
looking for?
Speaker 4 (03:30):
No, that's what they were looking for, But that would
represent a cut of twenty billion dollars. Now, billions of
dollars are a lot of money, and you know, those
of us hear those numbers, they're just sort of you know,
they're just you know, they're just so big. But you know,
in relation to the federal budget of multiple trillions of dollars,
(03:51):
there's a relatively small fraction of the of the federal budget,
but it's an enormous fraction of the budget of teaching, hospitals,
and medical schools across the country not sort of set
the tables so people understand this. The American biomedical research
enterprise that which exists in the United States is the
(04:14):
finest in the world. Let's fact one, it's the finest
in the world. And there has been a greater than
sixty year commitment partnership, whatever you want to call it,
between the federal government, teaching hospitals, and medical schools. When
I say a partnership, what that means is that the
(04:36):
federal government in partnerships, in partnership with just about every
medical school and many of the large teaching hospitals. We
recruit the faculty. The faculty apply to the National Institute's Health,
the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
that our faculty apply for grants, and they work on
(04:58):
projects that are in the interest of science. And those
projects can be at the very molecular level where they're looking,
you know, almost at the level of the atom, to
try to find a way in which a new area
of an atom or a series of atoms together in
molecules could provide a target for a drug. That's one
(05:21):
thing all the way to as you mentioned, how neuro
degeneration or degeneration of the nerves occurs, causing als could
be pediatric brain cancer and in the In the in
the instance of the National Institutes of Health, there are
calls for faculty and medical researchers from across the nation
(05:44):
to apply for grants in particular areas aging, mental health, pediatrics,
infectious diseases, kidney diseases, gastrointestinal disease, you know, across the thing.
And what I I love about the NIH, and what
I think has been so important about the nation's biomedical
(06:06):
research enterprise is that it's a meritocracy. The best grant wins,
and so hundreds of grants would go into the NIH
and experts in that particular area would come together. That's
called a study section. The members of the study section
read the grants and they score them, and it's like golf.
(06:29):
Low score wins, And so if you get say a
twelve or a two on a grant and the pay
line is twenty, you're going to be funded. In almost
every instance, you're going to be funded. And what's happened
in the last since February, let's put it that way,
since February. What's happened since February is that there has
been a slowdown in the funding of grants, consideration of grants,
(06:56):
paying of grants. In essence, there's been a slow down
in the commitment the nation has made to biomedical research,
which could threaten it in the nation for generations. And
this is not a minor thing for Massachusetts because in
Massachusetts we have some of the finest teaching hospitals and
(07:19):
four of the finest medical schools which have been conducting
world breaking research. I mean, I just hope everyone would
recognize that a member of the faculty of UMass CHAN
is this year's Nobel Prize winner this year. Now that
will change on Monday when the next Nobel Prize is awarded.
(07:40):
But one year ago Victor Ambrose, a member of our faculty,
won the Nobel Prize, and that was our second Nobel Prize.
Craig Mellow had won the Nobel Prize in two thousand
and six, and so across the world. The biomedical research
enterprise is respected in Massachusetts and billions of dollars into
the state to faculty members and our institutions to conductor search.
(08:08):
And this is critically important to the economy of Massachusetts.
When one of our investigators so Let's say when doctor
Ambrose wins a grant, the typical that he's called the
principal investigator in that instance, he typically hires seven to
ten people. Now you do that across three hundred of
our faculty, that's you know, over two thousand people are employed.
(08:30):
And the multiplier the economic impact of UMASH Chair Medical
School in Massachusetts is over two billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Let me.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
You're thrown a lot at us here, okay, and I
want my audience to basically absorb it.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Here.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
The statistic that I found to be the most interesting,
and if I heard it incorrectly, help me, is that
last year, last fiscal year, there was about you said,
forty seven billion dollars spent on medical research funding by
the federal government across the country.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Was that an accurate characterization of what you said?
Speaker 4 (09:11):
That is accurate? And that this year and the budget
for this year is twenty eight billion and the twenty
years forty eight billion.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Okay, So we're talking about a significant drop twenty billion dollars.
But also that's done close to I guess you could
you could say it's a fifty percent drop when you're
talking about lopping off twenty million or so from forty
seven million.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
That's you know, you're talking about drop. Dramatic, Okay, dramatic.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
We also know we also know that in the federal budget,
which is a huge number, and I think the overall
budget now is somewhere around six trillion every year if
I'm not mistaken, And there's a lot of what they
call non discretionary spending social Security and programs Medicare and
Medicaid and things like that that have been promised they have.
(10:06):
They can trim here, they can trim there, but this
is in the discretion of the executive branch. So my
question is this, if we talk to every person or
any person in Massachusetts and said the Trump administration is
going to knock off twenty billion dollars, but twenty billion
(10:27):
dollars from a figure of forty seven, because the denominator
and the nominator are both important to come up with
a calculation and a.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Percentage, that's a big cut. That's a big cut.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Now, why do you think the Trump administration Are they
being influenced by Robert F.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Kennedy.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And I'm not looking to turn this into politics, but
I'm just under it just seems to me that when
we're talking about trying to find a cure for als,
everyone's affected potentially by a less doesn't matter who you
voted for, doesn't matter what your party affiliation. Why would
there be such a dramatic cut levied against this? Is
this something that you think President Trump is concerned about?
(11:13):
Are they people within his administration who was saying, here's
where we got to make some cuts.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Or do you know?
Speaker 4 (11:20):
I don't, I don't. I would like to believe that
the president doesn't have that opinion. That would be what
I would like to believe. But what we are told
when when you know, when folks interact, when the Congress,
when the NIH director went to the Congress to talk
about their request, he said, look, I'm here to establish
(11:45):
a partnership with with the Congress. We want to change
some of the priorities. We want to we want to
emphasize research that's reproducible. So in other words, if one
scientist gets a result, that another scientist can get the
result the name and he had a series of principles
(12:07):
like that, and I would you know, I would say,
so fair, fair game. New administration. They want to say,
we're going to have some priorities but what the members
of the Congress and the way this should work. The
members of the Congress said, well, doctor, we appreciate your here.
We appreciate you'd like to cut the We don't want
to cut the budget. We want the budget to be
(12:27):
forty eight billion dollars and we want you to spend
forty eight billion dollars. That's what we want you to do.
And he kept saying, well, that's why I'm here, and
it's a partnership. So when the appropriation committees in the
House and the Senate, which is how this works, sent
the numbers for next year up, they sent they sent
a number just a little bit north of forty eight billion.
(12:48):
And now, with everything that's going on down there today,
you said you're going to talk about it in the
next hour. You can review it then. Obviously lots of
things are confused. But what's happened since February now is
incredible amounts of uncertainty have come into place. Let me
talk about let me do this.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I'm gonna let you talk, but I got to take
a commercial break. By the way, the NIH director is uh.
He's a Stanford professor, Jay Patcharia Uh and smart guy.
I think everybody would agree with that.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
Why smart?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
And I'm trying to get him to come on the
show and defend those those cuts.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I've had him on before, but sometimes when you work
for the administration, they put a short leash on people.
My guest is doctor Michael Collins. He is the Chancellor
of the University of Massachusetts chan Medical University Medical School.
And we're talking about cuts. We'll take a quick break.
(13:50):
We'll be back if you'd like to join the conversation
six thirty or six one, seven ninety. I say, we
got a great topic, we got a great guest. All
we got to do is add callers and stir back
on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
My guest is Michael, doctor Michael Collins. He is the
chancellor the UMass Chain Medical School. We only get a
couple of minutes left until the break, and we will
get to some phone calls after the news at the
bottom of the hour.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Chancellor.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But I guess we can talk about the numbers, we
can talk about the cuts, but I don't understand why
the population, whether they're Trump supporters or not, would rise
up and say, hey, there's a lot of places that
you can cut. And we understand that cuts haveter we made.
We have a thirty seven trillion dollar deficit. But this
(14:45):
is the last place that cuts should be made, because
the research that your folks are doing on a new
mass and at other institutions might save us, might give
us an extra ten years of life or twenty years
of life, might save a parent, might save a child.
You guys, is it truly where the rough meets the road?
Speaker 3 (15:02):
And this is nuts.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I hate to use a technical term, but I have
no other way to describe it.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Couldn't grave with you more, Dan, And so the way
I look at this research brings hope to the human condition.
Think about it for a minute. If there's no hope,
it's impossible to get out of bed in the morning.
And our scientists are working on projects to try to
change the course of history of disease. And it could
(15:31):
be pediatric brain cancer as we've talked about als. It
could be in developing new devices and ways to treat people.
You know, I had a patient that had needed an
aortic valve replaced. We now do that with two half
inch decisions in the groin and you don't have to
open the chest anymore and the patient goes home in
(15:53):
a day. These are all things that came as a
result of research and.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
The ale US work that doctor Brown does at said,
I'm very familiar with that. By the way, that is
a disease that seems to strike more and more families
every year, that research will have to be cut.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
I assume, well, if it's not cut, it's certainly going
to be delayed. And if it's delayed, then then the challenge.
This is the This is where I was going to
That is what I was going to say. It the
just before we took the break, that we have scientists
now who are need to do critical experiments and the
funding has stopped, and we know, just just to just
(16:36):
to make it real for us, you know, we have
millions and millions of dollars of grants that we know
have been approved, but they have still not been that
you know, we still have not gotten the green light
from the NIH to go ahead and start to spend
those moneys. You know, we had to let go over
two hundred and fifty people in the spring. We had
to cut back our grad school class, and every institution
(16:59):
has made, you know, similar kinds of these actions, And
to me, it's just so disappointing because we have assembled
this incredible group of people committed to science, working on
very important projects, and through administrative inefficiency, through decision making,
(17:21):
that is not in the best interest of human being.
And you're quite right when you say, you know, disease
is not a partisans right.
Speaker 6 (17:29):
It just isn't.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
And I think that you're also extremely correct in my
opinion that I think you ask the average person on
the street, they say, hey, we want the nation to
invest in research because we know the difference it makes.
Just about every drug that a patient takes has come
as a result of research that was done with NIH funding.
(17:52):
And now to cast this uncertainty and doubt administrative inefficiency
is just wrong.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
I would have make one suggestion to you, and then
we're going to go to the nine to thirty newscast,
and then we're going to go to phone calls. There
are four United States Senators who are physicians. All four
of them are Republicans, Marshall of Kansas, Cassidy of Louisiana,
Paul of Kentucky, and Barrasso of Wyoming.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Bar is there any effort.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To reach those four and literally form a caucus that
will go up and get those four senators. I'm sure
could get a meeting directly with the President and say
this is something that is dead wrong and this has
to be reversed.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Mister President, Have you guys talked to them at all?
Speaker 2 (18:42):
And I'm when I say you guys, I mean you're
you're a very influential chancellor at a medical school, major
medical school. There are others around the country. I think
that those that the key to success might lie with
those four members of the US Senator.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well, actually, we got fourteen Republican senators to write to
the NIH. We did exactly what you said. We got
fourteen Republican senators and they gave that exact point that
we want NIH funded, We want the research money to
get out the door. This is a very high priority
for us, and you should act upon this immediately and
(19:18):
we shall see.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
But those fourteen senators have written to Badachari, dokedor Badachari
at the NIH.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
He has to be following what the top guy, Donald
Trump is telling him. I don't know, I'm just trying
to open up a different avenue.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
But that's not exactly not the way it works. When
the Congress appropriates the money, the administration is supposed to
minister that funding.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Oh, I know that, I understand. I understand the political process.
But the President obviously has intervened here, and it would
seem to me that someone needs to show him that
this is.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
This is folly, this is folly.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
I'm just opening up as a possibility a nice little
Oval office meeting with those four US senators, maybe you
and a couple of the other chancellor, you know, heads
of medical call it medical schools around the country might
produce quicker results. With a face to face with with
Donald Trump, he occasionally does change his mind.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Yeah, we'll see. I'm ready.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
I know you are, and again I'm trying to help you.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
That's all. We're going to take a break.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
We got a nine thirty newscast and we've got callers
lined up on the other side. My guess is doctor
Michael Collins, Chancellor of the U mass Chan Medical School.
Let's keep going. The only lines that are opening right
now are six, one, seven, nine. We'll get to all
all the callers, I promise. Right after the news at
the bottom of.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
The hour, you're on Night Side with Dan Ray on
WZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
My guest doctor Michael Collins. He is the chancellor longtime
chancellor at the U mass chan Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Doctor Collins, I want to hear what people have to say,
and if there's any other quick comment you wanted to make,
I think you've you've articulated this dilemma very clearly.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
If not, we can just go right to the calls.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
I would make one out further point. We've had a
very important moment in Massachusetts. The governor has proposed four
hundred million dollars in state funds to bridge research gaps
which are being caused by the federal government. An extremely
important initiative. You know, there is that money that came
(21:29):
from the millionaire's tax and that could be used to
support the public institutions. It's because it's education and transportation,
and there is a way for people who want to say, hey,
I agree with Dan Ray, and we should support research.
And that's by supporting that that initiative, and the sooner
that money could get approved and out to our institutions,
(21:50):
the much better chance we have of keeping and retaining
and investing in our outstanding scientists is.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
That proposal language in the in the legislature.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
I don't know if I would say it's languishing.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Okay, let's put it.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Yeah, well that's fine.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Look, I understand you have to be a little political here.
I get that we don't want to a lot of
sensibilities that can't be offended. Let's uh, let's get to
phone calls here. First up is Stephen Bridgewater. Steve, you
were first a question or comment for doctor Michael Collins.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Go ahead, Steve, Yes, yes, I got a question for
the doctor. I know this might be a dumb question,
but I'm gonna go out on the ledge anyway. I
know research is involved, and it's very important, needless to say,
to do this kind of research. As a matter of fact,
I have a close friend that has als right now
and needs Every day he's deteriorating, he's getting worse, so
(22:44):
I don't know how much long he'll be around.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
But with that.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
Said, I think research is very important. But can I
ask this main question?
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Go ahead? Yeah, you've done the preface, let's do the question.
Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
Okay, why does research have to us billions of dollars?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
Great questions?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
And I know that doctor Collins is going to have
a good answer, doctor Collins, you got the question, well.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Ahead, Okay, so I got the questions. So we have
we have so just think about our medical school, uh,
just for a moment. So we have we in order
to do research, you need very highly complex technical facilities.
You have to you have to purchase incredibly expensive equipment.
(23:35):
You have to then bring the people. You have to
recruit the researchers that are going to come and do
the research, and the staff that they have. They have
to occur within an academic environment. So let me give
you an example. We have a we have some very
very precise, uh and delicate microscopes. When we got them,
(23:55):
they're called cryo EM cry on electron microscopy. When we
got ours, the next one was in Pittsburgh, and we
serve as a resource now to Massachusetts. We have four
of them now and so think of how the biomedical
research enterprise has blossomed in Massachusetts. We serve as a
(24:19):
resource to many entities. So it's actually you know, there's
collaboration and collegiality, so not everybody has to buy one
of these pieces of equipment. So in our instance, we're
a very research intensive institution. Now second point, think of
all of the requirements that we have with animal facilities,
(24:40):
radiation safety, the need for us to assure that there
is patient safety. So we have things called institutional review boards,
and these are all federal mandates appropriate by the way,
not complaining about them, but they're all extremely expensive. In
order to have a research protoc call, in order to
(25:00):
do it well, in order to assure that the science
is conducted appropriately, there's an enormous amount of oversight is done,
and then just the actual work of the scientists. It's
it's you know, it's not like our eighth grade biology
class anymore, where you know, you put a little put
a little cover slip on a slide and put it
(25:21):
under a microscope. These are these experiments are extremely expensive. Now,
I think one thing you can be confident about is
that there's an intense scrutiny of the request for money.
So when I said that these go to study section,
that there's a there's a process back and forth between
(25:43):
the study sections and the investigators to assure that whatever
moneys the government are going to invest are appropriate for
the science being done. And I think you should be
very confident that here in Massachusetts, with the incredible institutions
we have. There's enormous oversight over the enterprise, and the
money is extremely well spent. If you just look at
(26:06):
the economic multipliers, just if you just think about it
for me, how this supports the economy. There's all of
the entities in Kendall Square, in a long one twenty
eight that are involved in either drug discovery or device
development and who have their home in Massachusetts benefit from
(26:26):
the research done at our institutions.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
All right, Steve, I think that's a great question, and
I think you get an equally great answer, and I
thank you for the call.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Yeah, I think yes, I think that that answers the question.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Thank you, Thank you, Steve.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
A great night, be right back with more calls. My
name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside. My guess is doctor
Michael Collins, Chancellor of U mass chan Medical School in Worcester,
and he is I think bemoaning and rightfully bemoaning the
cuts in medical research that are being imposed by the
Trump administration. I don't understand why cutting medical research from
(26:59):
somewhere in the city of forty seven to forty eight
billion dollars a year down to the high twenties. It's
a huge cut and particularly a d mass which is
doing again cancer research and als. Just doctor Brown has
been amazing in terms of ALS research. And this is
(27:19):
the last thing in the federal There's a lot of
places to cut in the federal budget, but this is
not one of them in my opinion. Stephen Cambridge is next.
We got abby and new report as well, and if
you'd like to try, we'll try to get one more
or two more calls in as well. Doctor Collins will
be with us until nine fifty eight back on Nightside
after this.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
But I guess doctor Michael Collins, Chancellor of the University
of Massachusetts CHAN Medical School in Worcester. Stephen Cambridge is next. Steve,
welcome your question or comment for doctor Collins.
Speaker 7 (27:54):
Good easying Dan, doctor Collins, Doctor Collins. Around the year
two thousand, Branson Collins. I don't know if he's a
relative or not. Head of the Genome okay, head of
the Genome Project, mapped the human genome. Bill Clinton predicted
a complete revolution in medicine. Doctor Collins that Doctor Collins
(28:17):
said that within ten to twelve years they would have
all diseases mapped out, and the CUIST would begin rolling
out universities all over the country started building big stem
cell research facilities. I think there was a lot of exaggeration,
(28:38):
and I think a lot of it was to secure
billions and billions of dollars which have since disappeared. I
think there's a lot of careerism and politics in the
research establishment, and I think there's a lot of room
for cutting.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
How would you comment, Well, I think if you look
at what the doctor Collins was talking about, there have
been extraordinary discoveries made since the early two thousand. If
you just look at the discovery that doctor Mellow made
in RNA interference, that now has spawned numerous entities that
(29:17):
are making drugs. One in Massachusetts al Nylum that now
has I think it's four to eight products that come
directly from that technology. It's essentially it's like a Google
search for drug discovery. What doctor Mellow's discovery showed was
(29:38):
that a small RNA molecule can, like a Google search,
find a cell that in which it can interact and
it can actually it actually can treat a disease. I
think that's extraordinary accomplishment, and we've mapped now roughly seven
(30:01):
thousand rear diseases, and we have numerous scientists that are
working on trying to cure one of those rear diseases.
And you know, if your family's not affected by it,
then God bless you for that. But we deal with
lots of children and families, for instance, with canavan disease,
which you know, it's a big name and doesn't really
(30:23):
do much. But children, you know, for average persons, but
these children can't lift their heads of the off the mattress,
they can't feed themselves, they can't walk. And one of
our scientists discovered the gene with it was defective, has
now been able to deliver a gene therapy to patients,
and I can show you pictures of dozens of children
(30:43):
now with walkers but walking and their lives and the
lives of their family completely changed.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
I think the impression doctor, I think the impression Doctor
Collins wanted to make ways that the American public in
general would see how many many wide spread diseases tremendously cured.
And I think that was a lot of exaggeration on
his part. I'm not putting down all exaggeration, but I
(31:11):
think within the research establishment they often exaggerate and primarily
to secure massive amounts of federal funding.
Speaker 4 (31:24):
All Right, so we're just gonna we're just going to disagree.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Well, reasonable, reasonable people can disagree.
Speaker 7 (31:29):
We do it all the time, Heday, one more quick
point ahead. In nineteen seventy one, when Richard Nixon began
the War on cancer, the cancer establishment predicted that by
the by centennials nineteen seventy six, they would have cured cancer.
And they've been saying that ever since.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Okay, well, I don't think we should criticize them for trying,
that's for sure, Steve, Steve, thank you, thank you very much.
As you can see, not everybody is on the same
side of the street in this one politically, as are medically.
As you would hire Abby is in Newburyport. Abby, you're
on with doctor Michael Collins, Chancellor of the UMass chan Medal.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Right.
Speaker 8 (32:12):
Yeah, so I'm actually on your side. So I'm in
the same field, and I can breakface this by saying that, Yeah,
I've been in the healthcare healthcare provider for over thirty
years here in Massachusetts, and of course you know we
have the best research schools around the world. From Harbid
yourself to be you two toughs as you wear, Jana
(32:35):
fabraam I t and I'm sure as you are that
we received the Nobel Award for research. I believe it
was just this year. However, my questions are being on
that side. Uh cold, Do you think the schools could
use their endowments for research?
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Is number one?
Speaker 8 (32:57):
And number two is where do we cut from a
deficit in America? You know they always say, don't don't
come up with a problem with our resolutions. So where
could we cut to make up this deficit? Because America
doesn't want to be owned by any anyone else.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You're talking about the thirty seven trillion dollars in federal debt.
Speaker 8 (33:18):
Yeah, okay, fine that yeah. And then lastly, you know,
like I said, if it meant you couldn't feed your family, right,
but the kids wanted a baton lesson? Is that like research?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
So so a baton lesson in terms in terms in
terms of feeding your family and a baton lesson.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
There's a pretty significant difference there.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Research.
Speaker 8 (33:43):
I mean, where should we where should we cut? I understand, Oh, okay, we.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
Got the question.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Got the question, Abby, And if you stay right there,
doctor Collins, again, I don't expect you to pour over
the federal budget. But I'm sure there are other programs
in the federal budget that people people think are equally important.
But I don't think there's anything that compares to finding
cures for diseases that affect all of us indiscriminately, irrespective
(34:11):
of what political philosophy we might embrace.
Speaker 4 (34:15):
We just have a couple of reactions. First of all,
I don't think there are sides here. I think that
you know, people can respectfully disagree. I could tell the
prior caller about a patient that I took care of
in nineteen eighty that had testicular cancer, a twenty two
year old man who came into the hospital and was
dead in twenty four hours. That patient would get a
(34:38):
medicine today and would walk out of the hospital at
the end of the week completely cured. And and so that's,
you know, maybe not every cancer.
Speaker 8 (34:48):
I I agree with Norman, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
I'd let doctor Collins respond, Go ahead, doctor Collins.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
Normous strides. Now to the point of endowments, This one
comes up all the time and h and you know,
so the institutions with large, you know, large numbers, is
their endowments. Now, I think that what people have to
understand is when a donor gives a gift, particularly a
gift that goes to the endowment, it goes to a
specific purpose. So for instance, if we're going to have
(35:17):
the dan Ray Chair of Pediatrics and a person gives
a million five to our medical school, I can't take
the money in the dan Ray Chair of Pediatrics and
use it for als research because the donor has told
us exactly how that's going to be done. And when
that happens over and over and over again, then the
(35:37):
endowment grows up to a bigger number. Now our endowment is,
you know, quite a bit smaller, even though we've had
some great improve in the last five years. Our endowment's
gone up two hundred and fifty million dollars, largely due
to the generosity of doctor Chan and his family and
and and in the long run that's going to be
very helpful to the institution. But I do think there's
(35:58):
a bit of a misunderstanding a bit out university endowments.
Much of the money is specific purpose money, and it
can't be moved from one cause to another. We have
to honor the wishes of the donor. And and now
there are some donors that say, here, you can use
this for research, and we do. The other thing you
have to understand is endowments typically put out four to
(36:20):
five percent a year of money. So if you have,
you know, one hundred million dollar endowment, you know you
get four percent of that or four million dollars that
you can use per year because the endowment is meant to,
you know, sustain the institution over the long run. So
boards establish policies. So I do think that the numbers
(36:41):
get big and people just say, why can't you go
in and use the endowment, And the answer is you
can't because you have to honor the wishes of the donor.
Speaker 8 (36:48):
Right agree and thank thank you, thank you very much
for plaining that piece of it.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Okay, iby, Unfortunately we're flat out of time, but I
thank you for your call.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
It's a great question.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 8 (36:59):
Okay, thank you so much, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
All Right, to the callers in the line, you call
it a little late. Unfortunately, if you want to stay
they we're going to talk about a different topic on
the other side. But I want to thank doctor Michael Collins,
the chancellor of you mass Chan Medical School.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
I suspect a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
We convinced a lot of people that think about this
issue tonight, and I think most of them who think
about it are going to realize that we the last
place we should be cutting is medical research grants.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
So let's hope more.
Speaker 4 (37:28):
Dan, thanks so much for letting me have the time
to talk with you.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Absolutely, and if there's some progress on it, let me
know and we'll bring it back. Okay, thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (37:35):
Thank you very much, Michael Collins.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Chancellor at you mass chan Medical School. And thank god
that we have medical schools around the country. I'd like
to see us have more. We've talked about that. Back
on Night's side right after the ten o'clock news, we're
going to talk about the federal shutdown and it's implications
and how it might or might not end, and maybe
what sort of a timetable we might anticipate.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Be back on Nightside right after the ten o'clock news,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.