Volume 9, Number 2

September, 2005

Submissions Welcome!

The Editors encourage submission of any announcements, and/or letters to the editors, regarding psychological science. 

Comments on the content and presentation of the newsletter are also appreciated.

Submit to:


Editors, The Experimental Psychology Bulletin

Kristi S. Multhaup

Davidson College

(704) 894-2008


Mark E. Faust

Univ. of North Carolina at Charlotte

(704) 687-3564


 Humor Needed…

Why waste your time subjecting your family and friends to your humor when you can elicit guffaws from your colleagues?  Send us your science related humor: krmulthaup@davidson.edu 

Division 3 E-mail Listserve Access

Subscribe to the Division 3 E-mail network to keep informed about Division 3 and issues regarding psychological science.  This is a monitored network to keep the number of e-mails down.

Subscribe:  Send an e-mail to listserv@lists.apa.org.  Leave the Subject line blank and type “subscribe div3” in the body of the message.

Send a Message (once subscribed):  div3@lists.apa.org

Questions:  Send e-mail to Neal Johnson, Ohio State University, johnson.64@osu.edu

Division Representatives



Thomas R. Zentall

University of Kentucky

(859) 257-4076



Howard Egeth

Johns Hopkins University

(410) 516-7910


Past President

Alice Healy

University of Colorado

(303) 492-5032



Angelo Santi

Wilfrid Laurier University

(519) 884-0710



Charles L. Brewer

Furman University

(803) 294-3216


Members-At-Large of the

Executive Committee

Mark A. McDaniel (8/05-08)

Washington University, St. Louis

(314) 935-8030


Valerie F. Renya (8/05-08)

Cornell University

(607) 254-1247


Nelson Cowan (8/04-07)

University of Missouri

(573) 882-7710


Ralph R. Miller (8/04-07)

Binghamton Univ., SUNY

(607) 777-2291


Mark H. Ashcraft (8/05-06)


(702) 895-3305


Veronica J. Dark (8/03-06)

Iowa State University

(515) 294-1688


 Representative to APA Council

Lewis P. Lipsitt (8/04-07)

Brown University

(401) 863-2332


Emanuel E. Donchin (8/03-06)

University of South Florida

(813) 974-0466


Board of Directors

J. Bruce Overmier

University of Minnesota

(612) 625-1835


Committee Chairs

William D. Timberlake (Awards)

Indiana University

(812) 855-4042


Mark H. Ashcraft (Fellows)


(702) 895-3305


Randall W. Engle (Membership)

Georgia Institute of Technology

(404) 894-8036


Marvin Lamb (Program)

Cal. State Hayward

(510) 885-3484





Amendment Targets NIMH Research Again

Karen Studwell

Originally Published in APA Division Dialogue Newsletter

Retrieved 10/6/05 from: http://www.apa.org/about/division/dialogue/so05science.html#nimh 


For the second year in a row, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) has succeeded in his efforts to pass an amendment that would rescind funding for peer-reviewed behavioral research projects supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The amendment was attached to the FY 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill that the House of Representatives passed on June 24th. The amendment would prevent the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) from continuing to fund two psychological scientists working on quite different areas of behavioral research.


(Humor from members and the internet)

A funny story from a few years ago. My postdoctoral advisor and I were having a discussion of some our recent successes with various research projects and submitted manuscripts. We were both being complementary of the other in a nice collegial fashion. At the end of the discussion, one of our graduate students walks in and asks "What's up?" My witty comment was that she had just missed a meeting of the 'Mutual Admiration Society', but her lament really got me laughing - "When I attend those meetings, I'm the only one who shows up...."

The poor plight of the graduate student!

Michael E. Young http://www.siu.edu/~psycho/bcs/young.html

Ed Wasserman, from the University of Iowa, conducts research that seeks to increase understanding of vision and perception using pigeons as models. Sandra Murray, from the University of Buffalo, State University of New York, is investigating factors that contribute to successful marriages and how personal feelings of self-esteem influence the capacity to sustain satisfying close relationships. They now join the ranks of other esteemed scientists who have been targeted in recent years by policymakers concerned about how the NIH is prioritizing its research portfolio after its budget nearly doubled in the past five years.

While being singled out among the tens of thousands of other scientists would be alarming for any scientist, leaders in the administration and Congress offered their support for scientific integrity. Calling the amendment a form of “unjustified scientific censorship,” NIH Director Elias Zerhouni further stated that “it undermines the historical strength of American science which based on our world renowned, apolitical and transparent peer review process."

Speaking on the House floor against the amendment, Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) said that “the Neugebauer amendment…. represents a philosophical assault on the peer review process that serves as a hallowed barrier to scientific censorship… This is a slippery slope that I hope conferees will not slide down.”

In a letter to each member of the House of Representatives, APA CEO Norman Anderson also stated, “For Congress to defund any grants in violation of NIH’s exacting process is a blow to science, to scientists, and ultimately, to public health.”

The result in the House debate illustrates the uphill battle that scientists and organizations like APA face in educating policymakers about the importance of preserving the integrity of the peer review process. Since 2003, Karen Studwell of APA’s science policy office has co-chaired the Coalition to Protect Research (CPR) with Angela Sharpe of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA). The coalition was formed after a similar amendment was narrowly defeated in 2003. CPR’s sixty member organizations alerted their members days before the Neugebauer amendment was introduced urging their members to contact their Representatives and request that they vote no on the Neugebauer amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment was accepted with minimal debate and without a recorded vote as part of a group of amendments, so no members had a chance to record a vote. The funding bill was later approved by a vote of 250-151.

Not all hope is lost, however, as the Senate will begin marking up its version of the appropriations bill this week. Once the Senate approves its bill, likely without a similar amendment attached, it will be sent to a conference committee where any differences with the House bill will be reconciled. It is in that process where the Neugebauer amendment language is expected to be removed by those Members of Congress who have more experience with the scientific peer review system.

On July 20th, APA has arranged for Wasserman and Murray to meet with the New York and Iowa delegations to discuss how this amendment has affected their own research projects and the importance of protecting the peer review process from political interference. It is expected that the conference committee may complete its work on the FY06 funding bill before Congress breaks for the month-long August recess.

To read APA’s letter to the House: www.apa.org/ppo/issues/neugebauernbaltr62205.pdf

To read more about this issue, please go to: www.apa.org/ppo/scippo.html