Terry Gerton You have just introduced a new bill called the Scale Biology Act, and it is about a term of art, I’ll call it, federal biometrology at NIST. There probably aren’t too many people who use that word biometrology in a sentence, so tell us a little bit about what you’re trying to do with this bill.

April McClain Delaney Sure, thank you. Yeah, it is quite a mouthful. This is a bill that I just introduced with Ranking Member Lofgren (D-Va.), and also it’s a bipartisan bill with Representative Obernolte (R-Ca.) on the other side and Moylen. And it’s really important in terms of, you know, the evolution of biotech and how we need to have common measurements and standards. I should back up and say, I represent Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District, which houses the 270 corridor, NIST, NIH, National Cancer, Fort Detrick. And research is really foundational for a lot of our biotech industries, biopharma, and how we, in particular, NIST, is kind of the gem in our country and I think globally renowned for setting standards and how we measure things. And if you think about, we have trust in our measurements, whether it be in a pound, whether when we have, we are, whatever we are doing in terms of measurements, when you have trust it, you have kind of interoperability and an ability to use that data in a way which is cooperative and collaborative. My bill is really looking at having NIST conduct research and convey industry stakeholders, academia, scientists to unlock the bioeconomy, but particular to identify standards to safely bring emerging biotech to market and address safety and security concerns. So why is this important? As you know, our U.S. competitiveness with China is really one of the key issues for this administration, but for this country. And the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotech last year and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission identified this as a key issue is that we need to measure the data of biotech as it emerges so that we’re leading in the bioeconomy. I’m happy to talk a little bit more about it and get into it but let’s just have one example. In the last month, researchers just announced the creation of a fully synthetic cell and they called it a spud cell and as we make these unbelievable new discoveries. We need to be able to understand in common language between researchers around the world, how do you evaluate biotech and make sure that it is safe? And that particularly with the advent of AI, that when AI is looking at biotech or many of these molecular engineering biologies, that there is the same standard apply. It’s very wonky, but very important.

Terry Gerton Certainly as we’re thinking internationally, that idea of a common language and common standards is going to be very important. Why do we need a bill to encourage NIST to do this? Can’t they just do it on their own?

April McClain Delaney Well, not necessarily. I mean, obviously, NIST is within the Department of Commerce, and it receives its funding from Congress. Also, all of its authorization comes really through what Congress directs it to and then is administered through that agency. And so we do need to kind of give some parameters and authorize this type of a program, because NIST cannot just start any program at once. And in particular, down the road, we will need funding. Now I will tell you on that note, that my bill that I initially drafted had $350 million to convene this biometrology lab. And that would include things like convening universities, industry stakeholders, NIST scientist, scientists from around the world to kind of come together to create that roadmap and then to also create the biometrology lab, we have not been able as a Congress to decide upon the exact amount at this biometrology lab will need. And, you know, there are a lot of fiscal hawks that are, you know, pushing back. And so it was introduced and it’s also being introduced on the Senate side. And then we hope to come to a proper appropriations amount to make sure that we adequately resource this. But that’s why we need to because it includes resources. Obviously, it needs to go through appropriations and through Congress.

Terry Gerton Congresswoman April McClain Delaney represents Maryland’s Sixth congressional district. As you were just describing, a lot of the debate in Washington focuses on cutting costs and reducing headcount. And at the same time, you and so many others are saying that emerging technologies like biotech are a strategic national priority. So,  how should the government decide which of these scientific and technical capabilities are essential to preserve?

April McClain Delaney Very good question. Well, I think you need to look at where it’s evolving. I mean, it is estimated that as we invest in research and development in biotech, that biotech will be up to $30 trillion in economic value by 2050. So we obviously want to be part of that biotechnology community and a leader in it as a country. But we also want our companies to be able to be in that and to employ workers here and also educate and have the workforce. So I think that what we need to do in Congress is to be visionary about what are the technologies and the trends of the future, and how can we invest here, Maryland Sixth and the 270 corridor, but across this whole country, in those specific R&D resources that we need to be leaders. And remember, this also underpins not only our U.S. competitiveness. But it underpins our collective health and wellbeing and evolutions and innovation and research and public health and also our national security. So I think it’s this one in particular, I think is a no-brainer, which is why I think that we’ve, in a very partisan and chaotic time in Congress, this has incredible widespread bipartisan support.

Terry Gerton As you said earlier, your district, Maryland’s Sixth District, is home to major federal scientific institutions that play an important role in biotech research, but you’ve also been hit really hard with some of the Trump administration’s workforce reductions, program reductions, funding reductions. How do you reconcile that with the need to build out that functionality and build back the parts of the federal workforce that are gonna support the biotech ecosystem?

April McClain Delaney Oh, Terry, thank you for asking that question. So, so important. You know, I often say that Maryland has had a bull’s eye on it because we have so many of our leading research agencies. I’ve just been talking about NIH and National Cancer Institute and Fort Dedrick, which has a biometrology lab in terms of a lot of our COVID and a lot our viruses and pathogens and parts of DOE. But across Maryland, I think that, you know, we’ve had so many leading research agencies and also in Virginia and across the DMV. And it is nonsensical that this administration, through DOGE, went in and cut a lot of the workforce, or is cutting many of the trials that are, even cancer trials, that are so fundamental to making groundbreaking research possible and really undercut our economy. So there’s not, I think, a lot of rhyme and reason behind it. Sadly, for the last year and a half and in Maryland, our entire team, we call our team Maryland delegation, including our governor, Governor Wes Moore, we have been pushing back against this administration in terms of these cuts. I think that there is this thought within the administration that it’s better done in the private industry. But I have to get back to foundational researches. Private companies have an incredibly important part in terms of bringing products to market, but much of the foundational research that serves everyone has to be done by our leading researchers and agencies and universities, because often companies are very targeted on a small area that’s going to make a return for their investors, and thus they don’t have the holistic public health and well-being and collective national security issues at heart. And that’s why it does not make a lot of sense to make these cuts and why we’re pushing back. We also see a lot of cuts at our universities across the country. And the OMB directive that just came out about two weeks ago or three weeks ago has been causing great consternation in our leading research universities, as well as the administration’s singular focus on the individual scientist who is perhaps funded by the private economy.

Terry Gerton Your bill has been voted out of committee, not yet voted on in the floor, but if you are fortunate enough to get a vote and it becomes law, what would you be looking for two, three, four, five years from now that would convince you as evidence that we’re actually strengthening our biotechnology industry?

April McClain Delaney If we get this into law and from your mouth to God’s ears, and I think we’ve got a good shot, I think the success will be that there are uniform standards that could be used by AI, by international scientists around the world. And what it will do is facilitate getting more products or technology to market. And I think that it would be in there really a lot of innovation in health and helping us understand different cures for many of the diseases we have. But also, there’s a great deal of biotech that is looking at just different products, whether it could be in manufacturing. It could be different things with respect to even, we’ve been talking about how technology is helping in the communications arena. There’s a lot of different things that biotech can help synthesizing these sales. But we will not be able to do it in as quickly or as uniformly or as safely without having clear standards, a clear common language and an ability for there to be interoperability. It will also give us, if we have a competitive edge and are still the leader in these fields, that means that this bill has worked.