Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research

References

• Armstrong E, Carpenter D, Hojnacki M (2006) Whose deaths matter? Mortality, advocacy, and attention to diseases in the mass media. J. Health Politics, Policy, Law 31(4):729–772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashbury C (1985) Orphan Drugs: Medical versus Market Value (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA).Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Wright J (1994) Counteractive lobbying. Amer. J. Political Sci. 38(1):25–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balla SJ (1998) Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 92(3):663–673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balla SJ, Wright JR (2001) Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. Amer. J. Political Sci. 45(4):799–812.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banks JS, Weingast BR (1992) The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information. Amer. J. Political Sci. 36(2):509–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G (1996) The painful political truth about medical research. Bus. Week (July 29) 18.Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Bombardini M, Trebbi F (2015) Is it whom you know or what you know? An empirical assessment of the lobbying process. Amer. Econom. Rev. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Best RK (2012) Disease politics and medical research funding: Three ways advocacy shapes policy. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 77(5):780–803.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya J, Packalen M (2011) Opportunities and benefits as determinants of the direction of scientific research. J. Health Econom. 30(4):603–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanes i Vidal J, Draca M, Fons-Rosen C (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3731–3748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calvert RL, Weingast BR (1984) The nature and measurement of congressional influence over policymaking: The case of the FTC. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Center for Responsive Politics (2015) Total lobbying spending and number of lobbyists. Accessed March 17, 2015, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/.Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Coval J, Malloy JC (2011) Do powerful politicians cause corporate downsizing? J. Political Econom. 119(6):1015–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook-Deegan R, McGeary M (2006) The jewel in the federal crown? History, politics, and the National Institutes of Health. Stevens RA, Rosenberg CE, Burns LR, eds. History and Health Policy in the United States: Putting the Past Back In (Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ), 176–201.Google Scholar
• Cutler DM, Meara E, Richards-Shubik S (2012) Induced innovation and social inequality: Evidence from infant medical care. J. Human Resources 47(2):456–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo JM, Richter B (2014) Advancing the empirical research on lobbying. Annual Rev. Political Sci. 17:163–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo JM, Silverman BS (2006a) Academic earmarks and the returns to lobbying. J. Law Econom. 49(2):597–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo JM, Silverman BS (2006b) The returns to lobbying: University lobbying efforts and the allocation of earmarked academic grants. J. Law Econom. 49(2):597–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drazen JM, Ingelfinger JR (2003) Grants, politics, and the NIH. New England J. Medicine 349(23):2259–2261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dresser R (1999) Public advocacy and allocation of Federal funds for biomedical research. Milbank Quart. 77(2):257–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dresser R (2001) When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Eggers AC (2010) The partisan revolving door. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Fenno RF (1966) Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress (Little, Brown & Company, Boston).Google Scholar
• Fiorina M (1981) Some problems in studying the effects of resource allocation in congressional elections. Amer. J. Political Sci. 25(3):543–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiorina M (1982) Legislative choice of regulatory forms: Legal process or administrative process? Public Choice 39(1):33–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garber A, Romer P (1996) Evaluating the federal role in financing health related research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(23): 12717–12724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gorden P, Cyphers DF, Feld C (1993) Budget trends and issues affecting biomedical research: A perspective from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Hepatology 18(3):677–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenberg DS (1998) Disease lobbies. Washington Post (October 27) A23.Google Scholar
• Grier KB, Munger MC, Roberts BE (1994) The determinants of industry political activity, 1978–1986. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 88(4):911–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Amer. Econom. Rev. 84(4):833–850.Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Helpman E (2001) Special Interest Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Hegde D (2009) Political influence behind the veil of peer review: An analysis of public biomedical research funding in the United States. J. Law Econom. 52(4):665–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hegde D, Mowery DC (2008) Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system. Science 322(5909):1797–1798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (1998) Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Kerr W, Lincoln W, Mishra P (2011) The dynamics of firm lobbying. NBER Working Paper 17577, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kevles DJ (1977) The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945: A political interpretation of Science—The Endless Frontier. Isis 68(1):4–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krehbiel K (1991) Information and Legislative Organization (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
• Kroszner R, Stratmann T (1998) Interest-group competition and the organization of congress: Theory and evidence from financial services’ political action committees. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(5):1163–1188.Google Scholar
• Lerner B (2003) The Breast Cancer Wars: Fear, Hope, and the Pursuit of a Cure in Twentieth-Century America (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Li D (2012) Information, bias, and efficiency in expert evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. Working paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Lichtenberg FR (2001) The allocation of publicly funded biomedical research. Berndt E, Cutler D, eds. Medical Care Output and Productivity, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 62 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 565–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins M (1985) The legislative design of regulatory structure. Amer. J. Political Sci. 29(4):721–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins MD, Schwartz T (1984) Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. Amer. J. Political Sci. 28(1):165–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins MD, Noll RG, Weingast BR (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 3(2):243–277.Google Scholar
• McGeary M, Smith P (2002) Organizational structure of the National Institutes of Health. Background paper for the National Academies’ Committee on the Organizational Structure of the National Institutes of Health, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health (2008) Peer review process. Accessed March 1, 2014, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm.Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health (2011) Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center. Accessed November 10, 2011, http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/gard.Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2007). Report NSF 08-030, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08300/pdf/nsf08300.pdf.Google Scholar
• Nixon R (2012) Congress appears to be trying to get around earmark ban. New York Times (February 5), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us/politics/congress-appears-to-be-trying-to-get-around-earmark-ban.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
• Olson M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard Univeristy Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne A (2002) Do congressional earmarks increase research productivity at universities? Sci. Public Policy 29(5):314–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peltzman S (1989) The economic theory of regulation after a decade of deregulation. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity Microeconom. (Special issue), 1–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Richter BK, Samphantharak K, Timmons JF (2009) Lobbying and taxes. Amer. J. Political Sci. 53(4):893–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat BN (2012) Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH. Res. Policy 41(10):1729–1741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat BN, Buterbaugh K, Perl M (2013) New evidence on the allocation of NIH funds across disease areas. Milbank Quart. 91(1):163–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2010) On the existence of the maximum likelihood estimates in Poisson regression. Econom. Lett. 107(2):310–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage JD (1991) Saints and cardinals in appropriations committees and the fight against distributive politics. Legislative Stud. Quart. 16(3):329–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler GJ (1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell J. Econom. Management Sci. 2(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toole AA (2007) Does public scientific research complement private investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry? J. Law Econom. 50(1):81–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent-seeking. Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G, eds. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (Texas A&M Press, College Station), 97–112.Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2000) Chronic fatigue syndrome: CDC and NIH research activities are diverse, but agency coordination is limited. Report GAO/HEHS-00-98, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Varmus H (2009) The Art and Politics of Science (W. W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Weingast BR (1981) Regulation, reregulation, and deregulation: The political foundations of agency clientele relations. Law Contemporary Problems 44(1):147–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weingast BR (1984) The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice 44(1):147–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weingast BR, Moran MJ (1982) The myth of runaway bureaucracy. Regulation 6:33–38.Google Scholar
• Weingast BR, Moran MJ (1983) Bureaucracy discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. J. Political Econom. 91(5):765–800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO) (2011) International Classification of Diseases. Accessed November 10, 2011, http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/.Google Scholar