Contact Site Map Home APA Online Public Policy Home Public Policy Home
PPO Masthead
Science Policy Public Interest Policy Education Policy News Take Action Fellowships About PPO

SPIN - Science Policy Insider News

APA's Science Policy Insider News
August 2002

[ Subscribe to SPIN

Defense Research: Capitol Hill Lobbying Day and Annual Appropriations

PPO staff joined with colleagues from the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR) on July 10th for its annual Department of Defense (DoD) Lobby Day on Capitol Hill. Heather Kelly and Austin Weatherford, PPO’s undergraduate intern, visited the offices of Senators Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC), as well as staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, to encourage support for behavioral research in the FY03 DoD funding bill.

The annual appropriations bill for DoD (H.R. 5010) was passed by the House in June and by the Senate on August 1st. House and Senate appropriators are likely to meet in conference early in September (following the August recess) to work out final details on the largely non-controversial spending bill. There is good news for behavioral research in both versions of the bill. For the first time, the House met a science community goal of designating 3% of the overall DoD budget for the Science & Technology line, which includes all basic research. The Senate report accompanying the funding bill includes APA-drafted language urging DoD to fully fund all behavioral research sponsored by the military laboratories. PPO will seek to keep the larger funding level and the specific language related to behavioral research in the final bill sent to the President. To read the APA language included in the Senate DoD appropriations report, see: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/dodrptlang03.html.

Psychologists Nominated for Key Advisory Positions

Science Policy staff regularly look for opportunities to nominate psychologists to participate in consultative or advisory fora that are likely to influence agency programs and/or policy decisions. On July 12th, the Institute of Medicine's Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health announced the roster for a study entitled "Responding to the Psychological Consequences of Terrorism." We were pleased to see that one of our nominees, Gerard A. Jacobs, Ph.D. (Director of the National Disaster Mental Health Institute at the University of South Dakota) will be serving on the panel. As Dr. Jacobs is the only psychologist participating in the study to date, we will take advantage of an early August comment period to reassert our interest in seeing greater representation of psychological scientists on that panel. For more information on the study goals and objectives see: http://www.iom.edu/IOM/IOMHome.nsf/Pages/NBH+Psychological+Consequences+of+Terrorism.

In addition, Science Policy staff worked with the Practice Directorate to nominate a slate of prominent clinicians and prevention researchers for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Tracy Orleans, Ph.D., a Senior Scientist at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is currently the only psychologist serving on the Task Force. For more information on the Task Force see: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm.

[back to top]

National Science Foundation Funding for 2003 and Beyond

Congress has been very active on bills that will set priorities and establish funding guidelines for the National Science Foundation in FY03 and perhaps three to five years beyond. The House Science Committee passed an authorization bill (H.R. 4664, the “Investing in America's Future Act of 2002”) that encourages substantial increases for NSF and a significant investment in the behavioral and social sciences. The Senate version that is now working its way through committees (S. 2817) is even more ambitious, setting a possible five-year path to doubling the NSF research budget. PPO’s Heather Kelly invited representatives of the science community to a July 31st meeting with Senator George Allen’s (R-VA) staff from the Subcommittee responsible for NSF oversight. The group urged the Senator and his colleagues to “mark up” the bill and move it to the Senate for a full vote when Congress returns in September. Congress will take up the appropriations bill, which actually allocates specific funding for NSF, in the fall. Visit the Library of Congress legislative site at http://thomas.loc.gov/ to conduct online searches of current or past legislation.

Congress Takes Steps to Create Department of Homeland Security

For much of July Congress worked to craft legislation that would create a federal Department of Homeland Security. Because the proposed department would meld or reorganize the functions of 22 other government departments/agencies just about every Congressional Committee felt the need to hold oversight hearings on the functions under its jurisdiction including the administration and funding of research relevant to the Departments mission. See the full slate of hearings at: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/sterrorismhearings.html.

When one provision of the President's plan called for transferring certain public health preparedness functions to the new department from the Department of Health and Human Services, APA joined over two dozen other public health organizations in protesting the transfer because of the likelihood that it would lead to inefficiencies and distract from the on-going efforts to prevent and treat chronic health conditions. The letter can be viewed at: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/securitycltnltr.html.

In addition, APA staff worked closely with the Consortium of Social Science Associations, the office of Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), and House Science Committee staff to outline the role of behavioral and social science research in the new department. However, the House bill did not include specific language on behavioral research. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security did include Rep. Baird's mental health provision in its version that can be viewed at: http://www.house.gov/baird/prhomesec.htm.

On July 23rd, the House completed work on its version of the bill and the Senate will return from the August recess on September 3rd to continue work on its draft. Science Policy Staff will take advantage of the relative calm on Capitol Hill between now and then to continue advocating for behavioral research with Senate staff.
To view the House version, click here: http://hsc.house.gov/legislation/hr5005eh.pdf.
To view the current Senate draft, click here: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/073002s2452index.htm.

[back to top]

National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) Holds Quarterly Meeting

On July 30th and 31st, NHRPAC convened its quarterly meeting in Washington to discuss issues related to regulations that seek to protect human subjects who participate in research. Several NHRPAC working groups presented progress reports on issues such as decisional incapacity, informed consent, mental retardation and developmental disabilities, research with incarcerated persons and research issues with regards to children.

Of particular interest, the Children’s Workgroup is drafting a guidance document that can be used by the Office of Human Research Protections to clarify the section of federal regulations that governs research with children, (45 CFR 46 subpart D). The workgroup is focusing its current efforts on the interpretation of “minimal risk” and “minor increase over minimal risk.” The guidance is meant to assist Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and investigators in their interpretation of these concepts. The guidance will include case studies to provide examples of what constitutes minimal risk in survey research and other behavioral research paradigms that have been difficult for IRBs to integrate with the traditional interpretation of risk. More information on NHRPAC and its activities can be found at: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/nhrpac/nhrpac.htm 

Institute of Medicine Now Studying NIH Reorganization

A new Institute of Medicine (IoM) committee charged with studying the structure of NIH and making recommendations to the U.S. Senate held its first meeting on July 30th. The study is being conducted with NIH funds, but began as a result of a congressional request. The panel includes psychologist Alan Leshner, Ph.D., former director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse and now head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other behavioral scientists on the panel include psychiatrist Ken Wells, M.D. of UCLA and Martha Hill, Ph.D., R.N., Dean of Nursing at Johns Hopkins University. The full roster appears at http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDisplay/BLSX-K-01-05-A?OpenDocument.

The study is expected to last 15 months. The following questions will be addressed:

  1. Are there general principles by which NIH should be organized?

  2. Does the current structure reflect these principles, or should NIH be restructured?

  3. If restructuring is recommended, what should the new structure be?

  4. How will the proposed new structure improve NIH's ability to conduct biomedical research and training, and accommodate organizational growth in the future?

  5. How would the proposed new structure overcome current weaknesses, and what new problems might it introduce?

APA is closely watching this process, alert to any proposal that might enhance or dilute the strength of the behavioral and social sciences at NIH. The discussion of what an ideal NIH organization would look like is reasonable and overdue. And yet, the behavioral sciences have been growing and expanding in acceptance at NIH and we want the progress to continue. Several of the institutes that fund the most behavioral and social science research –the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Stroke (NINDS)-- are now operating with acting directors, who carry less political clout than permanent directors. Consolidating some institutes would not necessarily result in less behavioral or social science research, and could potentially produce additional opportunities—but that would depend on many factors. Certainly not all parties would have the same motivation for suggesting any particular change.

Several speakers and members of the committee referred to the notion of merging NIDA and NIAAA to create an Institute of Substance Abuse or Addiction as an example of reorganization that might reduce redundancy and allow additional research to be funded.

APA will watch for opportunities to provide comments and input into the process, and will keep its scientists well informed while the study continues. A final report will be presented to Congress and could then be used as a basis for legislation that would authorize a reorganization of NIH.

A panel of congressional staff members spoke at the meeting. They explained that Congress does not often know how to respond to proposals to create new offices or institutes within NIH as a means of addressing slow progress in a research area. An Institute of Medicine report could potentially provide cover for members of Congress to say no to some suggestions, and could guide the creation of new organizational entities within NIH.

Elias Zerhouni, M.D., the current NIH Director, and Bernadine Healy and Harold Varmus, former directors, spoke with the committee. Dr. Zerhouni, who has only been director for two months, used his time to pose questions to the committee that he hopes the report will help him answer. Drs. Healy and Varmus had more specific ideas or proposals.

Dr. Zerhouni acknowledged that NIH is very effective despite its organizational complexity. He said that it is not easy to measure whether NIH is optimally configured, because it isn’t easy to put value on its many ‘outputs’ as one could more easily with a business product. He had four jobs at Johns Hopkins but there was no question who the boss was—there was only one boss. In the NIH position he has one job but many, many bosses (the HHS Secretary, the President, the Congress, etc.) who each have different expectations. He believes that the many cultures of NIH have helped it attain success. It has not only a scientific culture, but an administrative culture of very broad consultation-- NIH uses 21,000 consultants per year.

He was asked to comment on the relative latitude NIH has to set its own research priorities. Zerhouni said he feels that Congress has been very restrained with earmarks. He said there is broad understanding that NIH is an enterprise engaged in discovery, and that to a great extent, the peer review process and scientific opportunity must steer NIH.

Bernadine Healy, M.D., who served as NIH Director from 1990- 93, said the NIH is the greatest humanitarian organization in the world and it exists for a humanitarian purpose. It has successfully merged the promise of scientific discovery with easing human suffering. She said that it isn’t just the number of institutes and disciplines alone that adds to NIH’s complexity. She said science does grow and change and scientists aren’t always the first to notice that a promising area is being neglected. She said that NIH’s attitude has almost always been that “No new institute is a good institute.” Her point was that if NIH were ever proactive about new organizing units, it might not be saddled with them from the outside.

Healy suggested that NIH’s structure could be modified into clusters in a way that might simplify some types of administration—

  1. Intramural programs & clinical center

  2. The health and disease institutes (14 by her count, e.g. the National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute).


  3. Medical and scientific disciplinary institutes e.g. National Institutes for Nursing Research and General Medical Sciences.

  4. Capacity-building units, e.g. the Fogarty International Center & National Center for Research Resources.

[back to top]

She would include a unit for managing large clinical trials under #4, and emphasized that these clusters would have to be balanced by a strong headquarters function in the Office of the Director of NIH. She said that the NIH Director has a hard time ensuring that the institutes cooperate with each other. That theme was echoed by Dr. Varmus.

Harold Varmus, M.D., director from 1993- 2000, wrote a piece for Science shortly after he left the NIH outlining his views about NIH’s sprawling organization. That article is widely credited with prompting this IoM study.

He said that largely due to the proliferation of institutes, NIH has become more difficult to manage. The NIH Director’s job has become harder to fill. Varmus thinks that is due in part to NIH’s reputation as a bureaucratic nightmare– the human resource challenge alone of filling all the open positions is discouraging. He proposes a smaller number of units and greater responsibility and authority for the director. He said that in many cases the director is underutilized because he/she has to spend an inordinate amount of time getting agreement to even modest proposals. In addition, Varmus said there is a significant lack of flexibility for the smaller institutes—they don’t often have the funds to do the size of studies or type of work that needs doing.

He acknowledged that reorganization may be difficult to achieve if advocates perceive it would create fewer opportunities for their input and less emphasis on research they are interested in. The fiscal growth of NIH has been fueled by advocacy. The committee must weigh the political liabilities in the long- and short-term. Clearly he feels that fewer units would strengthen the NIH research enterprise which is his chief interest. Speaking of additional authority for the director, Varmus said that he found the director’s discretionary fund and budgetary transfer authority not to be useful. What he wanted was incentives for institutes to collaborate.

He noted that NIH is successful for many reasons that have little to do with the way it is organized—for example, NIH funds have trained talented scientists who have trained other talented scientists. NIH has carefully tended a peer review process by which the best science is selected for funding. Varmus seemed not to think that the creation of particular institutes has made as great a difference (though others would surely disagree). He said that some dramatic and sweeping proposals are needed, and suggested as an example that NIH could create a huge Mind and Brain Institute (he wasn’t specific about the name) that would include multiple institutes: NIMH; NINDS; NIDA; NIAAA; the National Institute on Deafness and Communicative Disorders (NIDCD); and the National Eye Institute (NEI).

APA welcomes the comments and questions of SPIN readers on what works well, and doesn’t work well, within the National Institutes of Health. More information about the NIH Reorganization study can be found on the web site of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www4.nas.edu/cp.nsf/Projects+_by+_PIN/BLSX-K-01-05-A?OpenDocument.

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^

© 2008 American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242
Telephone: 800-374-2721; 202-336-5500. TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123
PsychNET® | Contact | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us