|
in this issue...
 APA Features Financial Risk-Taking Research at CNSF Exhibition
FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee Discusses Consumer Information
Friends of AHRQ Hold First Meeting of New Year
Friends of NIDA Meet With Board of Scientific Advisors
APA Welcomes New Presidential Science Advisor
Challenges to Enhancing Diversity of the Scientific Workforce
Answers to Questions About Challenge Grants
APA and Partner Organizations Recommend Five Scientists for New Health Info Tech Advisory Committees
National Academies Calls on Psychologists to Improve Intelligence Analysis
NIH Scientific Management Review Board Meeting Agenda
APA Features Financial Risk-Taking Research at CNSF Exhibition
On March 24, Science GRO staff coordinated a presentation by Dr. Brian Knutson at the 15th Annual Coalition for National Science Funding Exhibition. Dr. Knutson is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Stanford University. He and his colleagues study the neurochemical and neuroanatomical mechanisms responsible for emotional experience in the hopes of better understanding clinical disorders of affect and addiction, as well as economic behavior. On display at the Exhibition was this poster outlining his research: “The Psychology of Financial Risk-Taking: Results from FMRI Studies.” The Exhibition, which is set-up like a scientific poster-session, was extremely well-attended. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made an appearance and gave remarks saluting the importance of science and research. Six additional Members of Congress and large numbers of congressional staff attended to view the 31 exhibits featuring the full range of science that NSF supports.
Science GRO arranged for Dr. Knutson to meet with his home congressional delegation to discuss NSF funding and explain the significance of research such as his. Staff from the offices of Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein and Representative Anna Eshoo were very receptive.
Click here to view pictures from the Exhibition.
[back to top]
FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee Discusses Consumer Information
On February 26-27, the Food and Drug Administration held a meeting of the Risk Communication Advisory Committee. The meeting focused on discussing the history, development, and adequacy of Medication Guides, Patient Package Inserts, and Consumer Medical Information as information resources for patient populations. APA Fellow Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, who chairs the Committee, began the meeting by reviewing a series of questions to be discussed across two days of presentations. The end result was a detailed set of recommendations that concluded with a strong endorsement for using behavioral and social science in the design and evaluation of FDA communications. These recommendations have been sent to FDA’s senior leadership for consideration and action.
[back to top]
Friends of AHRQ Hold First Meeting of New Year
On February 25, Science GRO attended the Friends of the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) meeting to hear a briefing by Dr Carolyn Clancy, Director of AHRQ. Dr. Clancy’s presentation included a discussion of new priority areas for comparative effectiveness research (CER), several of which had behavioral or psychological foci including: depression and other mental disorders; developmental delays, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism; and substance abuse. AHRQ fared well when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) was signed into law, netting $300 million for CER. Additionally, the Institute of Medicine (IoM) is conducting a study to help identify further CER research priorities for the $400 million allocated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for CER. As part of that effort, the IoM is requesting public comment. On March 20, APA President James Bray was asked to give a statement presenting APA’s priorities on this topic.
[back to top]
Friends of NIDA Meet With Board of Scientific Advisors
On March 11, The Friends of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) held its annual meeting with its Board of Scientific Advisors. As part of the Executive Committee report, the Board was given a summary of the coalition’s educational briefing series, including the one for March 27. The event, the twelfth in its series, is entitled “Implementing Effective Substance Abuse Treatment in the Criminal Justice System” and features psychologist Steve Belenko, Ph.D.
In addition, the Board endorsed the coalition’s plans to sponsor the Addiction Science Fair Awards as part of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, the premiere high school science competition. In an effort to stimulate young talent in the addiction research field, the Friends of NIDA is contributing $2,500, which is being matched by an anonymous donor, for a total award pool of $5,000 to be distributed across the top three winners.
[back to top]
APA Welcomes New Presidential Science Advisor
John Holdren, PhD, was recently confirmed by the Senate as the new Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Holdren, a physicist from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, was first mentioned by now-President Obama as his likely nominee for National Science Advisor late in 2008. He subsequently sailed through a Senate confirmation hearing without obvious concerns from Democrats or Republicans before hitting a roadblock in the past couple of weeks. The word around Washington was that scheduling of his confirmation vote had been held up by a Democratic Senator looking for negotiating power with the Majority Leader on an unrelated legislative issue. With the "hold" released, Holdren is now tasked with stewarding the OSTP and providing the Administration critical scientific expertise on issues ranging from climate change and uncertainty to national security and educational reform. Science GRO staff have been engaged throughout the process, from urging the Senator to remove his "hold" on the confirmation vote to welcoming Dr. Holdren and offering ongoing resources from APA.
[back to top]
Challenges to Enhancing Diversity of the Scientific Workforce
As a founding member of the Collaborative for Enhancing Diversity in Science (CEDS), APA recently sponsored a Congressional briefing that focused on the challenges faced by all stakeholders, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), in creating a diverse scientific workforce. Moderator Mary Ann McCabe, PhD, Director, Office of Policy and Communications, Society for Research in Child Development, opened the briefing by noting some of the concerns shared by the more than 60 sponsoring organizations, including maintaining the United States global competitiveness and creating a more diverse scientific enterprise across all the disciplines.
Acting NIH Director Raynard Kington, MD, PhD, illustrated some of the challenges NIH faces in trying to increase the success of underrepresented scientists at NIH. In the past eight years, less than two percent of research project grants supported African-American scientists and less than four percent were awarded to Hispanic scientists. For some populations, like Native Americans, the number of funded scientists is so small that any analysis is nearly impossible. In response to the lack of progress in increasing representation of ethnic minority scientists, NIH is taking a closer look at the data to see what factors are critical to the long-term success of research scientists from diverse backgrounds. In explaining some of their unexpected findings, Kington emphasized that everyone serious about addressing this issue should be prepared for unpleasant evidence that might be uncomfortable to discuss, but will be necessary to truly solve this problem.
Wanda Ward, PhD, Acting Director of NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate, agreed with Kington about the need to diversify the scientific workforce, including increasing the representation of women and people with disabilities. In particular, she discussed NSF’s Innovation Through Institutional Integration Program, which encourages institutions to think creatively about integrating across NSF-funded projects.
Art Coleman, Esq, highlighted the legal challenges faced by institutions and the federal government alike when seeking to retain programs that focus on increasing ethnic diversity among academic or training programs, which is critical for all stakeholders to keep in mind when trying to address these issues with policy solutions.
[back to top]
Answers to Questions About Challenge Grants
Are you thinking of applying for one of the two-year NIH Challenge grants? APA scientists have raised many questions about what costs and benefits there may be to winning support for two years as opposed to the usual four years with a Research Project Grant (R01). Challenge grant applications are due April 27, 2009, so decisions must be made quickly.
We asked two harried but helpful NIH research managers—Richard Suzman, PhD, Associate Director of the National Institute on Aging for Behavioral and Social Research, and Jovier Evans, PhD, who heads the National Institute on Mental Health’s Geriatric Translational Neuroscience Research and Pharmacologic Intervention Program—to address a few frequently asked questions about the NIH Challenge grants and supplements funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus legislation).
Q: If I were to receive a Challenge grant, may I apply to renew it after two years?
Dr. Suzman: No, Challenge grants cannot be renewed, but the investigator could use another mechanism such as an R01 to request continuation of the work. Ideally the Challenge grant would make significant progress that could serve as the basis for an application that continues the research.
Q: Some in our department are advising early career scientists not to apply for a two-year grant because of the shorter term of support—possibly less prestige. Do you agree?
Dr. Suzman: Well, the investigator would lose their early stage or new investigator status, and they would have to weigh that against the value of the Challenge grant providing a significant research advance and platform for an R01 application. All the other grant mechanisms will still be alive and operating over the next few years. Indeed with everyone focused on Challenge grants, some counter-trend focus on regular R01s has its attractions. We do not know what the funding situation will look like in two years.
Dr. Evans: We are advising early career scientists not to go with Challenge grants for the simple reason that we feel they need to start off with a full five years of support to work on their R01. Having to scramble to put all the work into two years is no small task, and there are enough pressures on new faculty that we feel it is best that they get the longer period of support as in the traditional five year R01. If they should go for the Challenge, and get it, they are no longer eligible to submit as a “new” investigator for a regular R01.
Q: How might we best decide whether our research is appropriate for a two year grant?
Dr. Suzman: I think that what would be ideal would be if after the two-year project the researcher has a good probability of having been able to demonstrate significant concrete progress – a discovery or science advance, significant findings, showing the practicality of a very innovative idea or methodology, etc. that would become the basis for the next application.
Dr. Evans: Research that is limited in scope so that it fits in the time frame is best.
Q: We realize NIH program officers are overextended right now, but that we would still be well advised to speak with them. What should we know before we call?
Dr. Evans: Before investigators call program staff, have them check the NIMH home page, and in particular, regarding Challenge grants, have them view either the NIMH Challenge grant topic page or the OBSSR site for the 4 (of 5) challenge areas that we joined with OBSSR. It’s important to note that while we joined OBSSR on these topic areas, we advise that projects intended for NIMH in response to those OBSSR topics are also responsive to the NIMH strategic plan.
For our supplement programs, be sure to look at the NIMH web pages for the topic areas under which we are accepting supplements (links are available here and here). Also visit the NIHM page discussing the summer research experience.
Dr. Suzman: My general advice is to email first rather than call—emails are more efficient and the Program Officer’s email reply might provide a better platform for a phone call. Read the guidelines and any FAQs first, and have a clear idea of which bullets in the Omnibus solicitation you want to respond to—ideally include draft specific aims and the general topic in your email. (Information on NIA-specific challenge grants, along with the program officers who are in charge, may be here. Information on NIA priorities for administrative supplements are located here.)
Q: Do you have other advice about how scientists should approach the various two-year funding opportunities?
Dr. Suzman: The stimulus package is a once in a lifetime opportunity and we are very glad that Congress provided NIH with this unparalleled opportunity to accelerate scientific progress in improving health. It offers all sorts of opportunities for new infrastructure, directions and discoveries. I would think as creatively and innovatively as you can. I would encourage applications with transformative ideas in some of the exciting new areas that we have been advertising in aging such as social neuroscience, neuroeconomics, behavioral economics, behavior genetics, cognitive science, the basic science underlying behavior change and maintenance, translation etc.
Dr. Evans: Be sure to address the intent of the stimulus package in responding to these special initiatives, and be aware of the special reporting requirements. (While some applications might be submitted with modular budgets (some competitive revisions), all applications will require a detailed budget before support is given.)
[back to top]
APA and Partner Organizations Recommend Five Scientists for New Health Info Tech Advisory Committees
APA, partnering with the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, nominated five psychological scientists with expertise on human factors to serve on either of two new committees created by Congress in the Recovery Act (economic stimulus legislation). The two committees were established to create an improved electronic infrastructure, which the Administration sees as an important predicate for health care reform.
The two new committees are Health Information Technology (HIT) Policy and HIT Standards. The latter will make recommendations to the National Coordinator for HIT on standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use of health information. Members would be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. According to the federal announcement, a broad variety of stakeholders including researchers should be considered. The HIT Policy Committee will make recommendations to the National Coordinator on the implementation of a nationwide HIT infrastructure.
Scientists nominated by the three organizations include Sara Czaja, PhD, Professor in the School of Medicine and Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Miami; David Kobus, PhD, Director of Medical Systems at Pacific Science and Engineering, Inc.; Donald Norman, PhD, Professor in the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Psychology and Cognitive Science at Northwestern University; Jacob Seagull, PhD, Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine; and David Woods, PhD, Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Ohio State University.
[back to top]
National Academies Calls on Psychologists to Improve Intelligence Analysis
On February 12, the National Research Council held its first meeting of the Committee on Behavioral and Social-Science Research to Improve Intelligence Analysis for National Security. The Committee, comprised mostly of psychologists and political scientists, will “…synthesize and assess the behavioral and social-science research evidence relevant (1) to critical problems of individual and group judgment and of communication by intelligence analysts and (2) to kinds of analytic processes that are employed or have potential in addressing these problems. To the extent the evidence warrants, the panel would recommend kinds of analytic practices that intelligence analysts should adopt or at least explore further.” Based on its deliberations, the Committee will also develop a research agenda to better understand inherent problems in intelligence analysis as well as impediments to implementing solutions. During the first meeting, the Committee heard presentations on the intelligence cycle and descriptions of what intelligence analysis involves from the perspectives of both practitioners and senior intelligence community executives. The next meeting of the Committee will be held May 15.
[back to top]
NIH Scientific Management Review Board Meeting Agenda
The NIH Office of the Director has created a new website for the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB). As noted in the February issue of SPIN, the first meeting will be held on April 27-28, and one of the topics of discussion will be whether or not the SMRB should take up the question of a potential merger of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The draft agenda for the meeting has been posted and indicates that following introductions and various “housekeeping” requirements, the group will receive a historical briefing led by Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). Afternoon presentations will then review the 2003 report, “Enhancing the Viatality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet the New Challenges,” and provide perspectives on science and the structure of the NIH from former NIH Directors Harold Varmus, MD and Elias Zerhouni, MD. The next morning, presentations on the evolution, structure and function of NIAAA and NIDA will be led by Lawrence Tabak, DDS, PhD, Acting Deputy Director NIH, Ken Warren, PhD, Acting Director, NIAAA, and Nora Volkow, MD, Director, NIDA. Following SMRB discussion, there will be an opportunity for public comment. An afternoon session will focus on a review of the NIH Intramural Research Program and Clinical Research Center.
[back to top]
About SPIN
APA's Science Government Relations Office (GRO) wants you to know about the important policy issues that involve psychological science at the national level. The Science GRO staff advocate for psychological science not only with members of Congress, but also with the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Education, Justice, and with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Science Foundation. To keep you up-to-date regarding science policy within these agencies and on Capitol Hill, Science GRO staff write various articles and publish them monthly in an electronic newsletter called Science Policy Insider News (SPIN).
[ Subscribe to SPIN ]
Questions?
If you have any questions regarding SPIN or specific science policy issues, please feel free to contact any of APA's Science GRO staff.
Geoff Mumford, PhD
Assistant Executive Director for Science Policy
email
Pat Kobor
Senior Science Policy Analyst
email
Heather O'Beirne Kelly, PhD
Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer
email
Karen Studwell, JD
Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer
email
Anne Bettesworth
Science Policy Associate
email
Kirk Waldroff
Science Website Manager
email
Tammy Barnes
Administrative Coordinator
email
|
