APA's Science Policy Insider News June 2003

[Subscribe to SPIN]  Senator Harkin and Representative Kennedy Welcome New Institute Directors On May 22, the new Directors of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) received an official welcome on Capitol Hill from Members of Congress and various constituent organizations. It might seem more appropriate to use the term “relatively new”, but although Drs. Insel (NIMH) and Li (NIAAA) were appointed in September 2002, they required time to transition from established research careers and so really made their debuts at the winter/spring round of NIH Advisory Council meetings. Dr. Volkow (NIDA), the most recent appointee, really is new having assumed her position full-time only in mid-April.   The reception was organized by APA Science Policy staff and was co-sponsored by seventeen organizations which collectively represent hundreds of thousands of scientists, healthcare providers and patient advocates, and was meant to raise the profile of the new Institute Directors with Members of Congress and their staff. With a view of the Capitol in the background, 150 guests enjoyed good food and conversation before hearing welcoming remarks from APA CEO Norman Anderson. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ranking Member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NIH funding, shared his thoughts on the important work this new triumvirate would oversee. The importance of translational research is a common theme heard on the Hill these days as Congressional champions struggle to find additional funds for NIH and Senator Harkin used this opportunity to reiterate the need to take research from the bench to the bedside. Even though many SPIN readers may know of Senator Harkin’s leadership, [along with that of the Subcommittee Chairman, Arlen Specter (R-PA)] to double the NIH budget over the past five years, some may not know that Senators Harkin and Specter (R-PA) have introduced legislation to triple the NIH budget (proposing to increase it to 41 billion by 2008). While that may be an uphill battle given new estimates of the federal deficit and changing budgetary priorities, even as a symbolic gesture, such legislation sets an important tone in demonstrating support for research.Congressman Patrick Kennedy, (D-RI), who serves on the corresponding appropriations subcommittee in the House of Representatives, was also on hand to make remarks. Congressman Kennedy, son of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), provided a moving account of how substance abuse and mental health issues had personally affected so many members of his extended family. It is in part his willingness to expose these vulnerabilities that have given him so much credibility in his leadership of mental health parity legislation in the House. And like Senator Harkin, Kennedy noted the critical need for research to inform practice in the provision of services to the patient community. The event was also meant for each of the new Directors to provide some sense of their vision for their respective Institutes. As a preface to that, Dr. Anderson introduced Raynard Kington, the new Deputy Director of NIH, who had gone through his own set of recent transitions. It did seem like a small world as Dr. Anderson, the first Director of the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), reviewed Dr. Kington’s ascendance from Director of OBSSR to Acting Director of NIAAA to his current position as second in command of NIH.  Dr. Kington then took a few moments to provide some biographical context for each of the new Directors, who then in turn, described what they each planned to do in managing the institutes under their charge. At least one common theme emerged and it was clear to those of us assembled that all three Directors understand the challenges facing the research community and want to facilitate the entry of new scientists into mental health and substance abuse research careers.  View photographs of the reception [back to top] Sparking Congressional Interest in NICHD Research On June 2, the Friends of NICHD, co-chaired by APA's Karen Studwell, co-sponsored a congressional briefing with the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding featuring Duane Alexander, MD, Director of NICHD. The purpose of the briefing was to educate policymakers and their staff about the congressionally authorized National Children's Study (NCS) and the impact it will have on NICHD's budget. The proposed study plans to enroll a cohort of 100,000 children to determine the physical, social, and behavioral environmental influences on child health and development. Dr. Alexander explained that in order for the study to go forward, NICHD would require significantly more resources in FY2005 and beyond to fund the study and also preserve its other research programs. Given the current budget outlook for FY 2004 and FY2005 funding, it is unclear whether there will be adequate funds to begin enrollment. APA Psychologists Testify at Tobacco Control Hearing On June 3rd, three APA psychologists testified before the House Government Reform Committee on "Reduced Exposure/Reduced Risk Tobacco Products: An Examination of the Potential Public Health Impact and Regulatory Challenges". Jack Henningfield, Dorothy Hatsukami and Lynn Kozlowski were all pitted against tobacco industry leaders, Michael Szymanczyck (Phillip Morris) and Richard Verheij (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.) and all were asked to address four key questions: A number of non-tobacco products have entered the market in recent years designed to provide sources of nicotine other than cigarettes. These include water, gum, nasal sprays and patches. In your opinion, would products such as these be feasible for long-term use for those unable to quit smoking altogether? In what ways does the current regulatory structure hinder the development of these nicotine products? Should the federal government be encouraging greater use of these nicotine products? How could it do so? In your opinion, do reduced risk tobacco products have a place in the country's tobacco control efforts, or should efforts be restricted to medicinal nicotine or non-tobacco products? Read the testimony by Drs. Henningfield, Hatsukami and Kozlowski Read Chairman Tom Davis' (R-VA) opening statement Science Policy staff are always pleased to serve as a sounding board and otherwise help psychologists prepare testimony for Congressional hearings. We are pleased to note that Drs. Hatukami and Kozlowski are both alumni of an invitational Science Advocacy Training Workshop held in the fall of 1997 which APA devoted to tobacco control policy issues. [back to top] AHRQ DIRECTOR CAROLYN CLANCY HONORED BY FRIENDS OF AHRQ On June 4, APA co-sponsored a reception honoring the appointment of Carolyn Clancy, M.D. as Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). As a member of the Friends of AHRQ, APA has been supportive of dramatic funding increases for the agency, which among other initiatives has taken leadership on research to reduce human error and enhance patient safety in healthcare settings. Immediately preceding the reception, Dr. Clancy participated in a Congressional briefing to review the AHRQ patient safety research portfolio. During that briefing, Lucian Leape, M.D., the physician most often associated with leading the patient safety movement, lauded the role of human factors research and cognitive psychology in changing the way healthcare professionals viewed medical error and specifically cited APA Fellow David Woods' seminal contributions to the field. More information on AHRQ's medical error research portfolio Capitol Hill Reception Highlighting NSF-Funded Researchers Includes Two Psychologists On June 17, both APA and the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences (of which APA is a member) showcased psychological research funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) at a Capitol Hill Exhibit and Reception. The event, sponsored by the Coalition for National Science Funding, drew over 270 attendees, including eight Members of Congress: Reps. Frank Ballance, Jr. (D-NC), Lois Capps (D-CA), Howard Coble (R-NC), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and David Price (D-NC). Also in attendance were Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of NSF, and Dr. Kathie Olsen, Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. APA's exhibitor, Dr. Linda A. Jackson from Michigan State University, presented results from her "HomeNetToo" project, which examines the effects of home Internet use on low-income families. The Federation highlighted research by APA member Dr. Barbara Landau (the Johns Hopkins University) and her colleague Dr. Jim Hoffman (University of Delaware). View photographs from the reception [back to top] APA Participates in Annual DoD Research Lobby Events on Capitol Hill Each year the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR) holds a Lobby Day, during which the science community heads to Capitol Hill to advocate for the research programs sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD). This year the blitz lobbying events and visits were spread over two days in early June. Over 170 members of Congress, their staff, DoD personnel and scientists enjoyed an evening reception, and APA member Gerald Krueger joined Science Policy staffer Heather Kelly at a breakfast featuring Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Roberts spoke forcefully about the need for and his commitment to a significant investment in science and technology (including psychological research) within DoD. CNSR member organizations, which include universities and science associations, made over 30 visits to congressional offices, and continue to work with staff in those offices as the defense appropriations bills start to move through committees in the House and Senate. Research Appropriations Process Begins-Funding Increases Will Likely be Lower for Fiscal Year 2004 The National Institutes of Health would receive an approximate 2.2% increase-- $27.66 billion-- under the Fiscal Year 2004 spending bill marked June 19 by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS). The full House Appropriations Committee approved the bill on June 25 with few changes. The Labor/HHS Subcommittee was allocated $138.04 billion for discretionary spending, an increase of $3.68 billion, or less than 3%, over FY 2003 levels. The House Labor/HHS bill provides NIH a $682 million increase (2.2%) from the agency's FY 2003 appropriation of $26.9 billion. However, because of one-time costs in FY 2003, the House Appropriations Committee leadership said that the actual increase is closer to 7% than 2.2%. It was unclear at press time how those additional funds would flow to the budgets of NIH institutes. NIH spokespeople have said that a 2.2% increase would allow an increase of just 0.2% in the number of new and competing research grants. The Senate Subcommittee on Labor/HHS, chaired by long-time NIH supporter Arlen Specter (R-PA), also marked its version of the legislation on June 25. The Senate bill includes a $1 billion increase for NIH, a 3.3 percent increase. The full Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), approved the legislation on June 26. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) stated that members would seek to add more funds to the bill through amendments once the bill is brought to the Senate floor, which is expected in mid-July. APA and its coalition partners have been lobbying this spring for a 10% increase in NIH funding for FY 04, arguing that after five years of 15% increases, it would be difficult for NIH to transition smoothly with much less. In the past, the Labor/HHS bill has been the last or one of the last of the thirteen appropriations bills to be enacted, but this year it looks as if it will be one of the first. [back to top] OMB Efficiency Initiative Concerns NIH Staff and Researchers The efforts of the Bush Administration to increase government efficiency and reduce the size of the federal workforce have caused much confusion and anxiety in many federal departments, including the National Institutes of Health. The main concern for organizations like APA is the possible detrimental impact competitive sourcing may have on grants management functions and scientific program/review positions, as it is unclear how far the government will go in competitively bidding many of the functions currently performed by government employees. At issue is an executive rule implemented by the Office of Management and Budget known as Circular A-76, which describes procedures for determining which functions now being conducted by government employees might be more efficiently or less expensively performed by private contractors. All federal departments are implementing the circular by reviewing the functions of their own workforces. The process has raised concerns that the scientific functions of the government might be compromised if scientific positions are outsourced, and if the scientific agencies lose control over which scientists are hired for important grants-related positions. In June, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, MD, addressing the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Advisory Council, acknowledged that the process has caused some anxiety among the NIH staff and scientific organizations. He reiterated that the initial process would begin with a determination of which functions are inherently "non-governmental" and should be reviewed. Those functions will not automatically be outsourced, but will go through a competitive bidding process. Dr. Zerhouni emphasized that NIH will also be competing in the process, and will likely win most of those competitions given its expertise and demonstrated efficiency. He reiterated that with NIH's overall management costs at approximately four percent, it is one of the government's most efficient agencies. In FY 2003, a full generic competition is ongoing in grants (including program management, review and administrative support), real property (facilities) management, and "other opportunities," a catch-all category that enables the review teams to be flexible about their targets. In FY 2004, the targets are fire prevention, functions that were scheduled for FY2003 but did not get finished and, again, "other opportunities." NIH management staff at an A-76 Town Meeting in March assured a questioner that the health scientist administrator position is not scheduled for competition. Health science administrators have responsibility for scientific portfolios of grants and interact with scientists. It is possible that after review, NIH may decide that some more administrative grant management functions could be contracted out, but that determination has not been made. By FY 2004, NIH must review 25 percent of the more than 9,300 jobs that are not considered "inherently governmental" and therefore could potentially be performed by outside contractors. Functions, not individual employees, are the subject of A-76 review. According to the NIH Record, functions are picked based on where NIH feels it can best improve its mission. The steering committee looked at all functions and ranked those with the greatest opportunities for improvement. APA Science Policy staff is monitoring the implementation of Circular A-76 and several other issues that may detrimentally impact the management of NIH. APA is currently working in collaboration with other scientific organizations to communicate our concerns with NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson, recently nominated Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten and key congressional offices. More information on the A-76 process from the NIH Web site Senate Encourages Behavioral Research at NIH Each year both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees issue reports that accompany their versions of the coming year's spending bills. The Public Policy Office works with those committees to suggest language, or topics for language, on behavioral research at various NIH institutes. Although the suggestions in the reports do not carry the force of law, they are closely studied by administrators at NIH and demonstrate the Committee's interest in and support of various areas of research. For that reason we read through the massive report as soon as we get it to see which of our suggestions made it into print. Here is a sample of some APA-inspired language from Senate report 108-81, accompanying the bill to fund the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2004.   [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

Back to Top^