Arlen Specter: A retrospective

Harold Varmus1 Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892

ormer United States Senator Arlen and cancers (he had multiple treatments Specter, for many years one of for meningioma and successful therapy Fthe nation’s most passionate and for Hodgkin Disease before his terminal effective advocates for the Na- bout with Burkitt lymphoma). tional Institutes of Health (NIH), died When undergoing chemotherapy for at home in Philadelphia of a fulminant Hodgkin in 2005, Specter performed B-cell lymphoma on October 14, 2012, remarkable public service by demonstrat- at age 82. ing the importance of treating cancer Famed as a student debater, trained as vigorously in the elderly (he was 75 at the a lawyer, introduced to politics as a Phila- time), by showing that it is possible to delphia prosecutor, elected to the US continue work and exercise during treat- Senate, and brought to national promi- ment (he remained an indefatigable squash nence as chair of the Senate Judiciary player), and by placing his drug-induced Committee, Specter’s interests were hardly baldness in a humorous perspective. (His confined to science and health. However, highly applauded aplomb may have his long-standing assignment to the sparked his late-in-life interest in stand-up Labor, Health and Human Services Appro- comedy, an unexpected career turn priations Subcommittee was essential that can be viewed at www.youtube.com.) to NIH’s favorable budgetary fortunes, es- Despite his later forays into comedy and pecially during the many years in which his generosity toward the NIH, Specter he was either the chairman or the was famously gruff and impatient, even ranking minority member of the Sub- with his friends, his allies, and his extra- committee. Senator Arlen Specter. ordinarily loyal staff. My first taste of Part of Specter’s effectiveness in the this came in 1994 during my first appear- Senate can be attributed to the unusual the NIH budget, bringing it from less ance as NIH Director before the Senate fluidity of his place in the political than $14 billion in FY98 to $27 billion Appropriations Subcommittee. When I spectrum. He entered local Pennsylvania in FY03. ignored the red light denoting the rarely politics as a Democrat, then shifted to the Six years later, Specter again swelled honored 5-minute mark, Chairman Specter Republican party long before running the NIH’s coffers, this time nearly single- interrupted my carefully crafted testimony successfully for Senator in 1980. He was handedly. He persuaded Senate Demo- to bark out “Sound bites, Dr. Varmus, viewed as liberal on social issues, con- crats and the Obama administration to sound bites!” servative on fiscal matters, knowledgeable increase NIH’s allocation in the American Like all modern politicians, Specter and tough on judicial questions. His Recovery and Reinvestment Act to $10 knew that his political survival depended Senate career ended when he switched billion. This success was followed by his on his ability to raise funds for his cam- back to the Democratic column in 2009 principled decision to support the bill, a paigns, not just on his good work as a toavoidanalmostcertainlosstoaTea decision that proved to be politically legislator. Although he managed to be the Party candidate in the Republican pri- suicidal, infuriating many of his Republi- longest-serving Senator from Pennsylvania, mary. (He then lost the Democratic can colleagues and paving his path to winning five full terms, his fund-raising primary to an opponent who, in turn, was the exit. abilities were inherently limited by his defeated by the original Republican Specter’s commitment to the NIH was independence from his party’s platform; challenger.) not exclusively expressed in legislated by an impatient, even brusque, manner Specter’s alterations in party affiliation dollars. He encouraged pursuit of new that could offend potential donors; and by were consistent with a political persona scientific opportunities, especially when his ambivalent beneficiaries, among them driven not only by an instinct for survival he was convinced of their promise for many biomedical scientists. but also by dogged commitments to improving human health. This encourage- More of our colleagues are blue than judicial, scientific, fiscal, and diplomatic ment was evident in his enthusiasm for red, and most resist the assumption policies that did not align well overall the Human Genome Project and, in par- that they should display fiscal fealty, like with either party’s platform. In a sense, he ticular, for human embryonic stem cell others with vested interests, simply was a party of one. research. He fearlessly bucked many in because a member of Congress takes In this centrist mode, Specter did not his own party to take on the opposition, responsibility for their budgetary welfare. hesitate to reach across the aisle to form calling special hearings on stem cells and This attitude mystified Arlen Specter. a strong partnership with Tom Harkin posing legal arguments to expose the He often complained to me, especially of Iowa, his Democratic counterpart on hypocrisy of some who objected to po- when he was on the ropes in fights for NIH’s Appropriations Subcommittee, tentially life-saving research. reelection, that the thousands of scientists a cordial relationship that many of us Some of the NIH’s most potent advo- whose work relied on a strong NIH budget remember warmly. Together, and with the cates act on behalf of family members who failed to understand that they needed similar partnership of their equivalents have suffered dread diseases. Specter [John Porter (R-IL) and David Obey rarely alluded to familial illnesses, but (D-WI)] on the corresponding House was unabashed about describing his own Author contributions: H.V. wrote the paper. subcommittee, they committed Congress battles with heart disease (he had had The author declares no conflict of interest. to a series of five annual 15% increases in coronary by-pass surgery), dental decay, 1E-mail: [email protected].

21178–21179 | PNAS | December 26, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 52 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219606110 Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021 RETROSPECTIVE

to preserve his voice in the Congress, strong institutions could help determined This loss has left few, other than Tom even if they did not agree with him on individuals overcome adversity and Harkin, to maintain our national in- all topics. achieve great things. vestment in medical research, bearing His ability to endure politically, despite Senator Specter’s death is yet another both the enthusiasm that comes from obstacles to his easy success, was grounded milestone in the disappearance of a leg- personal conviction and the power that is in a hardscrabble upbringing. Specter’s endary cohort of Congressional advocates conferred by crucial committee father was a Jewish immigrant from the for medical research. Over the past two assignments. Ukraine who served in the first World War decades, death or retirement from Con- Speakers at the Senator’s funeral noted but then struggled to support his family gress have removed nearly all of the that his favorite sayings were “never give as a peddler and junkyard manager in most prominent members of that notable up” and “you are never too far ahead to Kansas towns, like Russell, where Jews contingent, some of whom were Repub- lose and never too far behind to win.” He were oddities. However, Specter’s rise licans, some Democrats, or—as in applied these mantras to the games of from hard times, through his education at Specter’s case—both: William Natcher, squash and politics. He would now ad- the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Mark Hatfield, John Porter, David Obey, monish us to remember them as we pursue Law School, forged his life-long belief that Ted Kennedy, and now Arlen Specter. medical science without him.

Varmus PNAS | December 26, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 52 | 21179 Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021