APA's Science Policy Insider News December 2002

[ Subscribe to SPIN]  APA Nominations for Human Subjects and Genetics Advisory Councils Earlier this year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services dissolved his Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing and replaced it with a new committee called the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Because psychology is included as one of the core competencies the Secretary is to consider in constructing the roster for the new Committee we want to be sure to nominate psychologists whose research background is relevant to the scope of the Committees charge. In consultation with the APA Working Group on Genetics Research Issues Science Policy Staff submitted a slate of nominees to fill those slots in mid-November. To view charter see: http://www.omhrc.gov/OMH/WhatsNew/2pgwhatsnew/2002-4.pdf. A separate slate of nominees was developed in consultation with APA's Director of Research Ethics, Dr. Sangeeta Panicker to fill vacant slots on a newly chartered Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP). SACHRP, chartered on October 1 replaces and expands the scope of the now defunct National Human Research Protection Advisory Committee (NHRPAC). To view charter see: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/sachrp/charter.pdf. APA Staff & NSF Scientists Invited to "Teach" at FBI Academy Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the anthrax incidents in the autumn of 2001, APA Science/Science Public Policy has been gathering and offering the resources of psychological science to counter-terrorism efforts across the United States. Staff in these offices have attended workshops and meetings, held conferences and Congressional briefings, and created resource files that describe the multitude of psychological researchers whose expertise is germane to such efforts. It has been heartening to see how generous our community is with its time, energy and skills. The challenge is to share this expertise with those who might make use of it. How can “first responders” make their problems and concerns known to psychological researchers and theorists? How can such researchers translate their findings into the kind of concrete, operational tactics that police, medics and fire fighters are likely to need on a daily basis? Geoffrey Mumford, Director APA Science Policy, and Susan Brandon, APA Science Senior Scientist, have begun a project that offers a unique opportunity to listen to the concerns and questions of police from across the United States. They have been invited by FBI Agents and faculty from the FBI's National Academy in Quantico VA to visit several ongoing classes and discuss behavioral science with the Academy students. The National Academy, currently in its 211th session, was instituted “to support, promote and enhance the personal and professional development of experienced law enforcement officers by providing relevant education and training and to increase their information networks in order to prepare them for increasingly complex and dynamic leadership roles in the law enforcement community” (FBI National Academy General Instructions, Feb. 27 2002). There are about 500 law enforcement personnel who take courses at the National Academy during an a11-week semester; three such sessions are held each year. Mumford and Brandon met with one class on November 22. They invited Deborah Frisch, PhD, a decision scientist from the National Science Foundation, also to attend the class. Dr. Frisch started the class off with a scenario about the Washington sniper incidents that illustrated human decision-making behaviors. The discussion then was opened up to more general concerns. Some of the questions posed were: How to predict panic in populations under assault, and how to normalize community behavior in a crisis. How to understand the terrorist mindset so as to be able to predict the selection of terrorist targets. Why some cops leak information to media knowing that it may harm an investigation. The negative impact of media in high profile law enforcement investigations. How to communicate information that the public wants during a crisis in a way that cannot be used to the detriment of the investigation. How to articulate the needs of the police to focus limited resources on likely suspects without appearing to apply profiling techniques. How to deal with police anxiety, which sometimes make it difficult for police to serve as a calming influence for the public. The American cultural preoccupation with assigning blame. Mumford and Brandon will continue to meet with several more classes at the National Academy. What is learned there will help to shape both the content and the format of how psychological science can be put to good use in counter-terrorism endeavors. [Back to top] Brand New Congress, Big New Department Next month Congress will return to Capitol Hill to begin its 108th session. But the balance of power in this Congress has shifted with the Senate now under Republican control. Within hours of the November election, discussions of public policy likewise shifted with broad implications for psychology. The new Congress will also deal with the impact of the new homeland security legislation in the last weeks of the 107th Congress. But now the real challenges begin. While the newly authorized Transportation Security Administration was considered a behemoth, it will certainly be dwarfed by the amalgam of twenty-two agencies that will comprise the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Although the authorizing legislation will serve as a blueprint, construction delays are likely and cost over-runs a sure bet. And questions of who is assigned to oversee the completion of the project and how it will be funded will add new wrinkles to the already complex process of sorting out a legislative agenda for the 108th Congress. Many of the agencies to be folded into DHS have traditionally been authorized and funded by different, and competing, congressional committees. This has raised concerns that the DHS Secretary (Gov. Ridge’s nomination as Secretary was still pending at deadline) would spend most of the time answering inquiries from every corner of Capitol Hill. A streamlined proposal recommended that two new Committees, one to authorize funds and one to appropriate funds, be created in each chamber of Congress. But such a proposal will likely stimulate controversy. Many Committees will make a case for retaining jurisdictional oversight and holding on to the purse-strings of programs that have been so long in their charge. Those issues aside, there remains a question of funding, and here’s where it gets a little shaky for everything beyond DHS, especially given that the 107th Congress adjourned having completed only 3 of the 13 annual appropriations bills for FY2003. Adding yet another appropriations bill that melds a $38 billion budget is awkward at best, but also has to be viewed in the context of fiscal conservatism that comes, by fiat, with a Republican majority. Although the executive branch has been at work for several months anticipating the creation of the DHS, Congress was given only 60 days to create an administrative plan for the new department. Implementing that plan is likely to be an iterative process. While nominally meant to take place within a year, realistically it is likely to evolve over several years. It is, after all, the largest transformation of government conceived in modern times. During the DHS organization, there are likely to be both gains and losses for psychology. As DHS will house somewhere between 170,000 and 200,000 employees, some unknown number of psychologists in government service are bound to be affected. In addition, new budget priorities and a possible war with Iraq will likely impact agencies that provide funding for both mental health services as well as psychological research. But, as the intent of the Homeland Security legislation is to integrate several governmental divisions into a coherent whole, the field of psychology should be an integral part of that effort. The Administration and Congress are pulling together a new vision for homeland security, and so should we. It is incumbent upon all of us - scientists, providers and educators - to be thinking creatively about how and where we can fit into and advance the critical mission of DHS. To this end, APA’s Science Policy staff will continue to engage congressional and federal agency staff directly on those issues. NCCAM Study on Complementary and Alternative Medicine At the end of October, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) announced the launch of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study of the scientific and policy implications of the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by the American public. Seventeen agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services will co-sponsor the study. In mid-November, APA Science Policy staff coordinated submission of a slate of nominees for the 15 member panel which should be assembled by mid-January. For more information on the $1 million, nearly 2-year study, see: http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/102102.htm. Congress Passes Bill Calling for Doubling of NSF Budget As SPIN goes to press, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4664) is at the White House awaiting President Bush’s signature. Passed by both the Senate and the House in November, the bill overcame a series of congressional and administration hurdles. The resulting compromise legislation would authorize a doubling of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) budget over the next five years, with funding levels for the final two years (FY06 and FY07) contingent on Congressional approval of progress in NSF’s management practices. Although a separate appropriations bill determines NSF’s actual funding each year, appropriators are guided by the policies and parameters set by the NSF authorization bill. As such, H.R. 4664 as public law would be a triumph for the non-biomedical science community. See Bill Summary and Status of H.R. 4664 at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR04664:@@@L&summ2=m&. APA Board of Scientific Affairs Meritorious Research Service Award The APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) is soliciting nominations for the Meritorious Research Service Commendation. This citation recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to psychological science through their service as employees of the federal government or other organizations. Contributions are defined according to service to the field that directly or indirectly advances opportunities and resources for psychological science. This may include staff at federal or non-federal research funding, regulatory or other agencies. Nominees may be active or retired but ordinarily will have a minimum of 10 years of such service. The individual’s personal scholarly achievements (i.e., research, teaching, and writing) are not considered in the selection process independent of their service contributions. For more information, please contact Suzanne Wandersman. [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 LaTonya Wesley, Legislative Assistant

Back to Top^