|
NIMH Reorganization Creates Uncertain Future for Basic Behavioral Science
While plans for the NIMH reorganization have been underway for nearly a year, NIMH Director Tom Insel formally announced the changes at the National Mental Health Advisory Council meeting on September 21st. As Insel previewed in the July Psychological Science Agenda, the institute’s organizational structure is being re-focused to facilitate and accelerate translational and interdisciplinary science, to more clearly identify brain-behavior pathophysiology - and to translate this knowledge into developing more effective interventions that target symptoms and functioning.
The focus of the new organization on neuroscience and translation is evident in the titles of the 5 new divisions created to span extramural research: the Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science, the Division of Adult Translational Research and Treatment Development, the Division of Pediatric Translational and Treatment Development, the Division of AIDS and Health and Behavior Research, and the Division of Services and Intervention Research.
During the past year, Norman Anderson and other APA staff have encouraged Dr. Insel and NIMH to continue supporting a comprehensive research agenda that includes a strong commitment to basic behavioral research, broadly defined. Steve Breckler, APA's Executive Director for Science, addressed the Council in May 2004, questioning whether a reorganization that focuses on translation at the expense of basic research may be a shortsighted approach. At the September 21st Council meeting, APA’s Associate Executive Director for Science Merry Bullock reiterated that, “translational work to apply research for treatment, diagnosis and prevention requires a strong and vibrant pool of research on the basic side of the translation equation, research that at first blush may not have a focus on mental disorders.”
Despite Director Tom Insel's assurances that there will still be a home for basic behavioral research there is much uncertainty about where some areas of research fit in the new structure. It is clear that some areas of basic behavioral science, especially those directly tied to brain-behavior relations or mental disorders, will still have support within the basic science division, as will much of the research on human and animal cognition, learning, memory, attention, and decision-making.
It is less clear how basic research on affect and social behavior and social cognition that does not have a direct impact on mental and behavioral disorders will be supported. For example, areas that were traditionally funded by the basic science division, such as much social and personality psychology, are being moved into the new translational research or AIDS and Health and Behavior divisions, with an increased requirement to re-focus work on the research’s application to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for mental disorders. To ensure that there is sufficient expertise within the new divisions, NIMH is seeking to recruit several new program officers in areas relevant to translation, including basic behavioral science.
As the rules for NIMH funding change, it becomes especially important to review the new documents and also to contact the program officers who are listed as contacts within the research branch where your research may be funded (see: www.nimh.nih.gov/researchfunding/reorganization.cfm. APA will continue to monitor changes within NIMH, and disseminate information on NIMH priorities and opportunities. We welcome your feedback via Email on how the reorganization at NIMH has or will impact your work. More information is also available on the NIMH website at: www.nimh.nih.gov.
Grants Available for Scientific Conferences, Proposals Invited
The Science Directorate is currently seeking proposals for research conferences in psychology. The purpose of this program is to promote the exchange of important new contributions and approaches in scientific psychology. The next deadline for applications is December 1, 2004.
Grant money ranging from $500 to $20,000 is available for the scientific conference. Proposals will be considered using such formats as “add-a-day” conferences ($500-$3,000 available), “stand alone” conferences ($5,000-$20,000 available), and festschrifts ($5,000-$20,000 available). APA is also open to innovative ways of holding conferences. The conference must be additionally supported by the host institution with direct funds, in-kind support, or a combination of the two. Please note that a detailed budget including institutional support is required for application.
Conference proposals must meet the following eligibility requirements:
- One of the primary organizers must be a member of APA
- Only academic institutions accredited by a regional body may apply. Independent research institutions must provide evidence of affiliation with an accredited institution. Joint proposals from cooperating institutions are encouraged
- Conferences may be held only in the United States, its possessions, or Canada
- APA governance groups, APA Divisions and other related entities are not eligible for funding under this program
Conference manuscripts shall be submitted to APA after the conference is held for publication in PsycEXTRA, a companion database to the scholarly PsycINFO. PsycEXTRA is designed to link researchers, academics, clinicians, librarians, consumers, and policy-makers to a variety of information sources covering psychology, behavioral science, and health; PsycEXTRA provides the readership with original documents.
Seventy-five percent of funds will be distributed to grantees prior to the conferences, and the remaining twenty-five percent will be released following the conference and after the submission of a final financial report detailing conference expenditures equal to or exceeding Grantee’s proposed total budget. Conference review committee members are: Anita Davis; Michael Domjan; Irene Frieze; Keith Humphreys; John Kihlstrom; and Kevin Murphy.
For more information on review criteria, proposal contents, and budget guidelines, please refer to the APA website at www.apa.org/science/confer2.htm or contact Deborah McCall, Science Program Manager, at (202) 218-3590 or via Email.
PROPOSAL DEADLINE: December 1, 2004
Please mail proposals to:
APA Science Directorate
750 First Street, NE
Attn: Scientific Conferences Proposals
Washington, DC 20002-4242
www.apa.org/science/confer2.html
Is Psychology a Player in Big Science?
Robert T. Croyle, Director--Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences National Cancer Institute
Over the past few years, I've grown increasingly concerned about Psychology. Before moving to NIH in 1998, my fifteen years as a faculty member in three different Psychology departments had led me to believe that Psychology was a vibrant and diverse discipline with tremendous relevance to the larger world of science. I continue to believe this, but I've also concluded that Psychology's potential as a player in "big science" is at risk and may not be fulfilled.
The Human Genome Project is often cited as an example of big science www.genome.gov/10001772. Given its focus on technology development, bioinformatics, and a molecular level of analysis, it's not surprising that psychology was engaged in the HGP mostly at the edges. A handful of psychologists, for example, continue to pursue studies of how individuals and families cope with genetic risk information. Others have struggled to reinvent the methods of behavioral genetics in light of our ability to sequence genes and analyze masses of information about their expression.
But the Human Genome Project is only the tip of the iceberg. As the NIH Roadmap illustrates nihroadmap.nih.gov, it is not just genomic science that is becoming more transdisciplinary and more technology-intensive. The traditional boundaries between disciplines are breaking down, and the multidisciplinary research team has become the new standard. Leaders within the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the pharmaceutical industry have been saying the same for some time. So have some psychologists. But as I travel around the country, visiting Psychology departments, Medical Schools, and Cancer Centers, the Psychology departments often look more like the crusty bastions of tradition than the incubators of innovation. The silos of individual's research programs and the field's subdisciplines are nearly as strong and competitive (i.e., non-collaborative) as they were a decade ago. The curriculum makes it impossible for a clinical student to enroll in an anthropology course. Deans encounter resistance from specialized faculty to the empowerment and funding of interdisciplinary programs. Graduate students whisper their interest in applied research conducted in real-world settings, hoping their advisor won't hear them.
Although they represent a small percentage of our community, the irony is that many psychologists around the country have and do participate in large-scale team science. The Women's Health Initiative www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi is but one example of a major enterprise where psychologists have played a key role. Cohort studies have grown in number, size, and importance, as have community interventions and multi-site clinical trials. But the world of big science psychology is often invisible with the typical psychology department. Many psychologists become involved in big science intentionally or accidentally by migrating not toward, but away from psychology departments to work for private research contractors or to fill faculty positions in schools of public health or medicine. Programs in cognitive neuroscience, informatics, addiction studies and psychiatric epidemiology that are housed outside of psychology departments often attract the most creative risk-takers who are willing to trade the security of hard money for access to new technology, special populations, and large research infrastructures that allow scientists to utilize multiple levels of analysis.
So what are we to do? One important step is to reconnect the psychologists in psychology departments with colleagues who have built their research careers in other settings. The psychologists involved in big science need to share their experience and expertise more widely so that junior scientists acquire the management, grant-writing, and collaboration skills necessary to compete on a larger playing field. Applied researchers need to be informed by the latest developments in basic behavioral science, and basic behavioral scientists need to demonstrate more effectively the value of their work by informing themselves about and contributing directly to big science activities. Although grant-funded research centers are often perceived by psychology faculty merely as sources of support for their graduate students, their importance as venues for transdisciplinary research training is grossly underestimated.
As APA launches the PSY21 initiative www.apa.org/science/psy21.html, I encourage colleagues to reach beyond their programs, engage colleagues in the biomedical and population sciences, and read one of the many recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences on the future of behavioral and biomedical research www.nap.edu. The conceptual and methodological expertise of psychologists is needed now more than ever. As research funders increase their investments in larger, longer, and more complex studies of the interaction of genetic, biological, and social factors underlying emotional states, behavior and disease, we psychologists will have to emerge from the comfortable world of two by two experiments and hyperspecialized journals into the world of big science. Human welfare depends on it.
Back to November/December homepage |
