APA's Science Policy Insider News October 2003

[Subscribe to SPIN]  Psychologists Testify During Congressional Hearing on Suicide and Older Adults On July 28, Senator John Breaux (D-LA) chaired a hearing entitled, "Senior Depression: Life-Saving Mental Health Treatments for Older Americans" before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Harry Reid (D-NV) were also in attendance at this committee's first hearing since 1996 focusing on mental health and aging issues. APA briefing materials on mental health and aging issues were given to congressional offices and members of the public. The expert panel included two psychologists and APA members, Donna Cohen, Ph.D., Department of Aging and Mental Health, University of South Florida, and Jane Pearson, Ph.D., Associate Director for Preventive Interventions at National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Dr. Cohen presented compelling testimony related to elder homicide and suicide, while Dr. Pearson highlighted current NIMH funded research on depression and suicide among older Americans. Read Dr. Cohen's congressional testimony View PPO's web page on Aging Psychologist William Haley Briefs Congress on Family Caregiving In July, APA co-sponsored a congressional briefing on lifespan respite care, as part of a coalition effort, which featured APA member William Haley, Ph.D., University of South Florida. Dr. Haley presented psychological research findings on caregiving's effects on stress, health, and emotional well-being, and the benefits of respite services, as well as individual and family counseling. In a follow-up visit with staff of Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Dr. Haley urged House passage of the Lifespan Respite Care Act, S.538/H.R. 1083, introduced by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA), and Representatives James Langevin (D-RI) and James Greenwood (R-PA). View photos from the caregiving briefing [back to top] NIMH Forming Workgroup on Basic Science The National Advisory Mental Health Council (NAMHC) met on September 12 and discussed several issues of importance to the behavioral sciences. Most notably, NIMH Director Tom Insel, MD, indicated that the institute would be reviewing its basic science portfolio to ensure that research that has the most promise for combating public health burdens is funded. This has raised concern among the basic science community that areas of research, particularly in basic behavioral science, will be curtailed. The NAMHC requested that a workgroup be organized to review the basic science portfolio, including molecular, cognitive and behavioral science, to provide scientific guidance to NIMH as it sets priorities among basic research. APA has recommended a slate of psychologists to serve as experts on this workgroup. APA CEO Norman Anderson met with Insel last week to discuss the future of basic science research at NIMH and how a proposed Council workgroup will contribute to that effort. Insel confirmed that NIMH is looking at ways to refocus its portfolio, but it would be looking to the workgroup to prioritize areas of basic research. More information about the workgroup is expected in the next few weeks, and we will continue to monitor its progress. Insel's Report to Council [PDF] APA Member Steve Zarit Comments on NIMH Proposals At its September 12 meeting, the NAMHC also discussed a report from the Council's Aging Research Workgroup that was formed earlier this year to review the mental health and aging portfolio at NIMH. The workgroup recommended several strategies to increase coordination and support for research and training in mental health and aging. APA member and aging expert, Steve Zarit, PhD, presented comments to the NAMHC on behalf of APA. Zarit applauded the final report of the Aging Research Workgroup and recommended that NIMH consider reinstating the Aging Branch and increasing funding for aging research and training. APA Public Policy and Aging staff will continue to monitor the status of the workgroup's recommendations. APA Addresses the National Children's Study Advisory Committee Merry Bullock, PhD, APA's Associate Executive Director for the Science Directorate, addressed the National Children's Study Advisory Committee (NCSAC) on Monday, September 15. APA was invited to provide comments from the behavioral science community to the twenty-member advisory committee as it continues the planning phase of the study. The primary planning agencies include the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. After a review of the current hypotheses that have been submitted to the NCSAC by the 22 working groups of the study, APA offered several broad comments on key issues that would affect the validity and usefulness of the study to future behavioral research. As the final decisions regarding study design and specific final hypotheses have not been made, APA also requested that organizations be allowed to comment on the final design and hypotheses before implementation. Bullock emphasized that the NCS should serve as a rich resource for future generations of scientists, which requires a nationally representative sample and incorporation of age appropriate measures of development, including cognitive, language, social and emotional development. Other areas that require further input and hypotheses included mental health outcomes, health disparities, adolescent behaviors and substance abuse. In addition, Bullock recommended that a focus on positive development and health outcomes would provide much needed information about subclinical outcomes that may have a broad impact on child health and development. The study is scheduled to begin enrollment in 2005, though it is unclear if Congress will provide adequate resources to the primary agencies involved in planning the study. More information on the study, the advisory committee, and the working groups can be found here. [back to top] Eleventh Science Advocacy Training Workshop Focuses on Military Psychology PPO convened its 11th annual Science Advocacy Training Workshop at the end of September, bringing in fourteen distinguished researchers to focus on "Psychological Science and the Military." Following intensive training in federal legislative process and effective communication with Congress and the media, the psychologists talked with Susan Chipman, PhD, from the Office of Naval Research. The group developed a briefing sheet on behavioral science funding within the Department of Defense (highlighting substantial cuts to this program in Fiscal Year 2004), which they used while advocating for increased support in Fiscal Year 2005 during meetings with their Congressional delegations on Capitol Hill. Scientists with expertise including human factors, psychobiology, and industrial/organizational psychology were: James Callan (Pacific Science & Engineering, Inc.), Janis Cannon-Bowers (University of Central Florida), Nancy Cooke (Arizona State University), William Howell (Arizona State and Rice Universities), Dennis Kowal (IDA), Gerald Krueger (Wexford Group International), Sandra Marshall (San Diego State University), Kevin Murphy (The Pennsylvania State University), Michael Paley (Aptima, Inc.), Elaine Pulakos (Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.), Karlene Roberts (University of California, Berkeley), William Strickland (Human Resources Research Organization), Jennifer Vendemia (University of South Carolina), and Stephen Zaccaro (George Mason University). APA Science Co-Sponsors Congressional Briefing with Sen. John McCain In conjunction with the PPO Science Advocacy Training Workshop, APA co-sponsored a congressional briefing on September 29th with the office of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) titled "Psychological Science in Support of the Soldier." In his roles as Chairman of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Member of the Armed Services Committee, and former Naval officer and POW, Sen. McCain is a strong supporter of defense research on Capitol Hill. His staff provided the Commerce Committee hearing room for the briefing, which was designed to educate congressional defense staffers on the vital contributions of psychological research to our military and national defense. Three APA members, Gerald Krueger (Wexford Group International), Robert Roland (Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University), and Howard Weiss (Purdue University's Military Family Research Institute) presented research on human factors issues in designing infantry suits, operational research on Prisoners of War, and military family issues related to service member recruitment and retention. William Howell (Arizona State and Rice Universities, former Chief Scientist for Human Resources for the U.S. Air Force, and former APA Executive Director for Science) moderated the panel and offered a vision for future human-centered research within the military. View the photo gallery from the briefing APA Members Help Shed Light in NASA's Darkest Hour After the release of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s (CAIB) final report in August, congressional committees with NASA oversight authority decided to hold hearings beginning the first week of September to help clarify the agency's role in responding to the CAIB recommendations. But what Congress may not have appreciated until recently, was the role psychological scientists played as consultants in shaping that final report. At least two APA Fellows, David Woods and Karlene Roberts were called before the CAIB to deliberate/review the boards findings. As the House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation geared up for hearings, APA Science Policy staff worked to make sure relevant congressional staff knew about Woods and Roberts work. As a result, both were contacted by Committee staff and David Woods has been invited to testify at a Senate hearing on the “Future of NASA” where he will be asked to discuss “…cultural changes that NASA should consider and implement in order to accommodate visionary advancements in its mission, goals and strategies” on October 29. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science has already passed a bill (H.R. 2450) to "establish an independent, Presidentially-appointed investigative Commission in the event of incidents in the nation's human space flight program that result in loss of crew, passengers, or spacecraft, including the International Space Station". One of our goals would be to ensure the creation of a more proactive advisory body including experts who understand industrial/organizational behavior and resilience engineering to help avoid catastrophic accidents in the future. More information about the Senate CAIB hearing More information about the House CAIB hearings available here and here [back to top] APA Collaborates with APS on Basic Research Initiative at NIH For the past several months, APA's CEO Norman Anderson, along with Public Policy Office staff, have collaborated with the American Psychological Society on ways to increase the amount of basic behavioral research funded by the National Institutes of Health. For the past five years, congressional appropriations report language has encouraged the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) to begin funding behavioral research and training. NIGMS has been reluctant because its research priorities are more molecular in nature (e.g. structural genomics, pharmacogenetics, stem cell initiatives). Yet because NIGMS is "the basic science institute," with a budget of nearly $2 billion, and because NIGMS's mission statement includes behavioral research, the two psychological organizations have determined that it is a place at NIH where behavioral research could be fruitfully expanded. U.S. Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Brian Baird (D-WA) have focused NIH's attention on the request with questions and correspondence directed to the NIH leadership and NIGMS in particular. In response to the congressional interest, NIH has launched an inventory of basic behavioral research at NIH, which will be conducted by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, and is forming a steering committee to make recommendations to the NIH Director. The committee will include behavioral scientists from within and outside of NIH. The steering committee will report to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni via the Advisory Council to the NIH Director, in an estimated one year's time. The committee may or may not recommend that basic behavioral research be supported by NIGMS. The committee will also investigate basic behavioral research funded by the National Science Foundation to see if there is coordination or overlap. With the NIH budget tightening, now that the doubling of its budget is complete, pressure will likely increase for NIH-funded research to yield new treatments and cures. When the spotlight is on translational and clinical research, basic research may be overlooked. The NIH-wide effort now beginning is an opportunity for a high-level look at opportunities and gaps in basic behavioral research at NIH. Keep an eye on SPIN for additional information about this initiative. [back to top] Science Defined in the Interests of Homeland Security In the July issue of SPIN we reported on a joint letter-writing campaign with the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), registering concerns we had about the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act (S.589). The bill, sponsored by Senator Akaka (D-HI), is meant to stem the perceived brain drain within the federal workforce of individuals who are critical to homeland/national security by providing graduate fellowships. The bill provides the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) a great deal of latitude in deciding which workforce domains constitute "Areas of Critical Importance", except when it comes to Science. In that case, the bill defines science as "…any of the natural and physical sciences including chemistry, biology, physics and computer science", but then goes on to explicitly exclude social sciences from eligibility. Following up on letters to the Sponsor and Co-sponsors of S. 589, we met with staff from Senator Akaka's office in September to remind them of the important contributions social scientists are making and will continue to make on the homeland/national security fronts. It appeared that staff recognized the importance of the social sciences but just thought that there were already too many. Fortunately, we were able to supply data indicating that: 1) psychologists are under-represented as both applicants and awardees in the most basic science fellowship programs (NSF Graduate Fellowship) every year from 1998-2003; 2) based on the most recent data (1999), the numbers of social scientists employed in the federal government is below the number of both physical and life sciences (NSF Science and Engineering Indicators - 2002); 3) based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Projections, the need for life scientists, physical scientists, and social scientists will increase by about the same amount (18.1%, 18.3% and 20.1% respectively) by 2010. Therefore, based on the rate they are applying and receiving awards, the current representation in the Federal workforce, and the projected future need, we were able to convince Senator Akaka's staff that social science needs to be part of the mix. In our last round of communication, they were receptive to alternative language we proposed: "the term science means any field of study deemed by OPM and the sponsoring agency to represent an Area of Critical Importance for homeland security applications". Although it's unlikely that the bill will move forward before Congress adjourns for this session, it is likely to reappear next year. It was an interesting coincidence that these discussions were on-going as the Department of Homeland Security announced the first round of awards in its Homeland Security Scholars and Fellows Program. The competition is run through a contract with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, a Department of Energy facility managed by Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Of the recent awards, approximately 20% of the recipients were social scientists, (data that we took full advantage of in making our case to Senator Akaka's staff). Recipients of the Homeland Security Scholars and Fellows Program Awards Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Oak Ridge Associated Universities More information about the Scholars and Fellows Program [back to top] Any questions? If you have any questions regarding SPIN or specific science policy issues, please feel free to contact any of APA’s Science PPO staff. Geoff Mumford, Ph.D., Director of Science Policy Pat Kobor, Senior Science Policy Analyst Heather O'Beirne Kelly, Ph.D., Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer Karen Studwell, J.D., Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer Sara Robinson, Legislative Assistant

Back to Top^