{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02834008097165992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.104938271604938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
For biomedical research, is reassurance enough?

IN HER FIRST visit to the Bethesda, Md, campus of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in support of her husband's Health Security Act, Hillary Rodham Clinton praised the work of the institutes and assured the biomedical research community that, in the push for health system reform, the role of basic and applied biomedical research has not been forgotten. Indeed, she says, it plays an essential role in that reform. "Without expanded investment in medical research we cannot have a health care system that gives us the kind of health care we want and expect," Mrs Clinton said. The key elements of reform—assurance of quality, prevention of disease, and savings in cost—cannot be achieved without continuing and strengthening research, was her message. The president believes in the need for continued investment in basic science and biomedical research and training, says Mrs Clinton. "It's essential that we preserve the mission of