The Free To Choose Medicine project focuses on creating federal legislation allowing terminally ill and chronic-suffering patients access to promising drug treatments prior to FDA final approval. Patients, under the care and guidance of their doctors and having full and fair disclosure of the efficacy and risks of non-FDA-approved drugs, would have the right to choose their course of therapy.
Galbiati has an extensive background in strategic planning, regional economic development, corporate and government finance, and legislative affairs at the federal, state, and local levels. He has held senior management and executive positions with Fortune 500, middle-market, privately held, and not-for-profit corporations, as well as government agencies.
Most recently Galbiati served as president and CEO of the Northwest Indiana Forum, a business leadership association having primary responsibilities in industrial environmental affairs, legislative affairs, and public policy; business development and retention; and regional research and public relations.
Galbiati, who earned his MBA at Indiana University, has been recognized for his contributions in regional advancements in transportation, distribution and logistics, fiber optic infrastructure development, and public policy in high-technology business development.
To me, science is a process of continuous discovery. So when casted alongside of ideology let alone political ideology it doesn’t exactly pass the smell test. Science ebbs and flows with new ideas, innovation, technology, intellect, verve and excitement, and passionate curiosity. It requires an openness of mind and heart and debate is its most trusted ally.
Among The Heartland Institutes’ many recent disappoints is any prominence that Peter Gleick (and ostensively his supporters and sympathizers) once received as a thoughtful scientist(s) will be forever tainted. More is the pity, thoughtful debate took a nose dive.
Heartland values rigorous and honest debate. Gleick’s action clearly did not demonstrate a retaliatory frustration in opposing scientifically challenging literature rather it promulgated a vulgar immaturity.
Too often organizations are attacked for preserving the privacy of its donors, and crying foul over anonymity is nothing more than a “Red Herring” when either fearing or ignoring debate, and only serves to reduce the space where legitimate refuting science can be heard from both sides of the issue.
Far too much of that space is taken with those having little respect for law, an effable absence of integrity, and mostly cowardice. It’s a desperate attempt in trying to make needed voices disappear into the woodwork; and fails with certainty.
Ideologue or not, Gleick’s reputation is irrevocably diminished. He will be forever remembered stupidly. And, The Heartland Institute will go about its good business a little sadder but with more clarity of who the clashes really are between; and can only hope the scientists will stay in sight.