Bill Overview
Title: Defund EcoHealth Alliance Act
Description: This bill prohibits the award of federal funds to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc (including any subsidiaries or related organizations). This is a nonprofit research organization that studies coronaviruses in bat populations and other environmental health concerns. The Government Accountability Office must also audit federal funds provided to that organization over the past decade. The audit must include the amount of those funds provided by EcoHealth Alliance to China, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or benefiting from coronavirus and environmental health research
Estimated Size: 1000000
- EcoHealth Alliance is involved in researching coronavirus in bat populations, which has implications for global public health, particularly in the prevention of pandemics.
- The organization's research potentially impacts scientists, healthcare professionals, and communities involved in disease control and pandemic prevention.
- Stopping funding could halt or slow down important research on coronavirus transmission and potentially other environmental health issues.
- This may affect global health preparedness negatively, hence impacting individuals at risk of infectious diseases.
- Research projects funded by the US government might be specifically at risk, including US-based research on infectious diseases related to bats.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on defunding EcoHealth Alliance, which is a specialized research organization. The target population directly affected by this policy includes researchers, professionals, and organizations involved in public health and disease prevention efforts.
- Those indirectly connected, such as healthcare professionals and communities benefitting from pandemic research, may see long-term implications but are less immediately impacted.
- The policy might not have a direct and immediate impact on the broader US population since it targets a specific research funding stream, hence the cost limit and scope should primarily focus on researchers and related fields.
- While the audit might create jobs temporarily, the cessation of funding could lead to a decrease in research outputs, which might affect pandemic preparedness and environmental research developments in the long term.
- Consideration for selecting interviewed individuals includes representing both those who could benefit indirectly from continued funding and those directly impacted by the policy's implementation on research projects.
Simulated Interviews
Virologist (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for auditing funds, but removing funding would impede critical research on pandemics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 9 |
Public Health Official (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stopping EcoHealth funding risks our preparedness against future pandemics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 9 |
Healthcare Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirectly, patients may receive less optimal treatment if research funding dries up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without funding, our projects studying zoonotic diseases would be indefinitely paused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 9 |
Environmental Scientist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental health research might be deprioritized, impacting broader health initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Auditor (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The audit provides short-term employment, but research cessation could cut scientific jobs long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy endangers my thesis and career prospects in research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Public Health Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Scientific collaboration interruptions risk public health advancements on infectious diseases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Nonprofit Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Defunding affects cross-agency collaboration on health and conservation projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Biotechnologist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- EcoHealth Alliance's data is crucial for developing new pandemic technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 2: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 3: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 5: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Key Considerations
- The block of funding for COVID-19 and similar research could impact global public health initiatives.
- Potential reputational impacts on US scientific research collaborations.
- Implications for future global health preparedness as a result of reduced research funding.
- Necessity for the GAO to deploy resources for the audit process.