[Subscribe to SPIN]
 Science Leadership Conference Heads to the Hill
Psychologists to Serve on New FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee
Senate Approves $1 Billion Amendment to NASA Appropriations Bill
House Hearing on Tobacco Regulation
NIH Searching for a Few Good Peer Reviewers—Got a Candidate?
Got Debt? National Institutes of Health Seeks Applications for Loan Repayment Programs
NIH Wants to Hear From You about Support of Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
Science Leadership Conference Heads to the Hill
Nearly 100 psychological scientists participating in the 3rd Annual Science Leadership Conference (SciLC) traveled to Capitol Hill on Monday, October 15, in the largest-ever APA advocacy effort on behalf of science. After receiving a day-long advocacy training, attendees from across the APA leadership and divisions came together to advocate for increased federal investments in basic and applied scientific research. In more than 120 visits with House and Senate offices, SciLC participants requested congressional support for $6.55 billion in FY08 funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a $950 million increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In addition, participants asked that their Representatives and Senators support the merit review system for supporting research, rather than cutting off funding for individual grants via congressional amendment. Since the SciLC visits, both the NIH and the NSF funding bills were approved by the Senate and will be conferenced with the House-approved versions before being sent to President Bush, who has threatened to veto both appropriations measures for including excessive and irresponsible spending. Full coverage of the SciLC will be featured in the November edition of APA’s Psychological Science Agenda.
[back to top]
Psychologists to Serve on New FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee
Earlier this month, we learned that the Food and Drug Administration chose, and received acceptances from, the 15 initial voting members of FDA’s Risk Communication Advisory Committee. One of APA’s nominees, Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences and Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, was appointed Chair.
Science Government Relations staff reached out to FDA soon after the January 30 release of its response to an Institute of Medicine Report entitled “The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public.” The FDA response contained a passage describing FDA’s renewed commitment to risk communication that piqued APA’s interest:
Click here to view the entire story.
[back to top]
Senate Approves $1 Billion Amendment to NASA Appropriations Bill
Earlier this month, the Senate approved an amendment cosponsored by Senators Mikulski (D-MD) and Hutchison (R-TX) that would add $1 billion to NASA’s FY08 budget. This is a critical first step in addressing NASA’s mounting fiscal pressures. Over the last 20 years, NASA’s research budget has gone down steadily, with space exploration expanding at about the same rate. The result is a significant and increasing gap in life sciences and human factors knowledge.
The House did not approve a similar amendment when they passed their NASA appropriations bill.
Always looking for opportunities to draw attention to psychological research, Science GRO drafted a letter to House and Senate Appropriations Conferees urging them to adopt the amendment in the final Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill and to emphasize the importance of psychological research in the report that accompanies the final bill. Please note that the above linked version of the letter was sent to Representative Mollohan and the rest of the House Conferees. An identical letter was sent to Senator Mikulski and the Senate Conferees.
[back to top]
House Hearing on Tobacco Regulation
On October 3, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a long-awaited hearing on H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) control over the regulation of tobacco products.
Although this is the first action the House Energy and Commerce Committee has taken on this legislation in the 110th Congress, it is a critical and necessary step that will clear the way for further consideration of the bill. The fact that only three of the Subcommittee members did not make an appearance at the hearing demonstrates that there is a major interest in this issue and a strong commitment to moving the bill forward. As you may recall from past SPIN articles, the Senate HELP Committee voted the companion bill, S.625, out of Committee on August 1, and the bill is now waiting for Senate floor time.
Included on one of the witness panels was psychologist and APA member Jack Henningfield, a Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. In his testimony, Dr. Henningfield said that FDA regulation of tobacco is greatly needed because tobacco products are sophisticated drug delivery systems, and regulation would assist in preventing deceptive designs that kill many Americans. He also noted that the FDA is the correct (and, in fact, only) agency with the appropriate experience and expertise to develop and enforce product performance standards.
On a related note, the Friends of NIDA coalition, in an ongoing effort to educate Congress about the value of addiction research, is holding its ninth in a series of luncheon briefings, this time on nicotine and tobacco dependence. Please see the formal invitation to the event, titled “Treating Nicotine and Tobacco Dependence: The Science of Quitting,” for further details.
[back to top]
NIH Searching for a Few Good Peer Reviewers—Got a Candidate?
NIH has asked scientific societies to provide vetted lists of potential peer reviewers. As you may imagine, NIH's scientific review staffers spend a great deal of time searching for appropriate reviewers for standing study sections and special emphasis panels. One way that you, the APA science membership, could help is by suggesting reviewers in whose hands you would place the vital jobs of assigning grant scores, and most importantly, who can represent psychology well within groups of diverse expertise.
We in the Science Directorate are asking you to suggest a scientist within your subdiscipline(s) who is not currently a member of an NIH study section. (To see whether your nominated scientist serves on a study section, check the name against the member search option at the bottom of the page on the Center for Scientific Review website. All nominated scientists should have or have recently had NIH support (see the NIH funding database, CRISP)). Provide the name, location and contact information for your nominated scientist. We at APA will contact him or her about the nomination and ask if he/she would be willing to serve. There is no guarantee that NIH would contact your nominated person right away, but NIH staff assures us that it would be enormously helpful for them to have a list of qualified scientists who are willing to serve if asked.
The APA Science Directorate and Board of Scientific Affairs have worked hard to recognize and honor scientists who embody a "culture of service" to psychology. There is no higher service to psychological science than to participate in peer review. Particularly now, as NIH budgets are tight, helping identify the highest quality grant proposals is a true service to psychology. We look forward to receiving a nomination from you by Tuesday, December 4, 2007. Please email Pat Kobor with your nomination.
[back to top]
Got Debt? National Institutes of Health Seeks Applications for Loan Repayment Programs
With growing concerns about attracting and maintaining the next generation of scientists, NIH is undertaking an effort to attract additional applications for its five Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs), which pay up to $35,000 per year of qualified educational debt as well as the corresponding federal taxes for post-doctoral scientists as they pursue research careers. The new campaign, “Strength in Numbers,” seeks to reach out to individuals from a broader scope of biomedical and behavioral disciplines, including psychology. NIH currently funds LRPs in the following five areas: Clinical Research, Clinical Research for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, Contraception and Infertility Research, Health Disparities Research, and Pediatric Research.
Since the inception of NIH’s LRPs in 2000, APA’s Science Government Relations Office staff have worked with the NIH Director’s Office to track the success of psychologists competing for those funds. Based on the NIH data, psychological researchers have traditionally been well-represented in the LRPs. On average, 22 percent of the new and continuing awardees in the past four years are psychologists and 25 percent of those supported psychologists are minority researchers. Perhaps not surprisingly, psychologists continue to be essentially absent in the area of contraception and fertility research, but they continue to play an important role across the four other programs. Please refer to tables 1 and 2 for details.
Click here to view the entire story.
[back to top]
NIH Wants to Hear From You about Support of Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
The NIH is seeking input from the scientific community, health professionals, patient advocates, and the general public about current and emerging priorities in basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (bBSSR) that may offer potential for improving and accelerating health research and its impact on the health of the Nation. APA is asking scientific psychologists to respond both to NIH and to APA with ideas about areas of basic research that are not well supported at NIH, but that may be relevant to its mission to enhance health. This information will aid NIH’s Office of Planning and Strategic Initiatives (OPASI), working with expertise from the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, in developing a congressionally-requested strategic plan for bBSSR at NIH. Click here to view text from the House Appropriations Committee request and the full NIH announcement.
Click here to view the entire story.
[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 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
Elizabeth Hoffman, PhD
Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer
email
Anne Bettesworth
Science Policy Associate
email
Kirk Waldroff
Science Website Manager
email
[back to top] |
