[Subscribe to SPIN]
 Social Psychologist Testifies at “Imus” Hearing
Energy Hearing Provides Forum for Testimony by Social Psychologists
FDA Drug Abuse Advisory Subcommittee Re-Constituted
First Friends of NIAAA Briefing Will Focus on Underage Drinking
New APA Science Policy Fellow Placed at Department of Defense
Virginia Tech Psychologist Discusses Research on School Shooting on Capitol Hill
National Children’s Study Research Plan Under Review
Psychological Scientists Speak Out on NIH Peer Review
Social Psychologist Testifies at “Imus” Hearing
Earlier this week, Science and Public Interest GRO arranged for Dr. Karen E. Dill, Associate Professor of Psychology and media expert at Lenoir-Rhyne College, to testify before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on the effects of violent interactive media content on American culture. The hearing, “From Imus to Industry: The Business of Stereotypes and Degrading Images”, convened by Chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL), came in the wake of the now infamous “Imus incident” where radio host Don Imus referred to players on the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed ho’s”.
Rap artists “Master P” and “David Banner” testified alongside hip-hop music scholar and commentator Michael Dyson, PhD. Also testifying were entertainment executives from top tier music and interactive video companies (Universal Music Group, Viacom International, Radio One, Take Two Interactive Software, and Warner Music Group). Dill’s panel concluded the hearing with representatives from academia and media watchdog groups.
The hearing was often contentious and impassioned as media industry executives fought to defend themselves against charges that they exploit racism, misogyny and violence to make a profit, while some of the other panelists tried to avoid the “slippery slope” of first amendment rights.
Describing the current cultural climate, Dill testified, “American culture is now largely that which is shaped and maintained by the mass media.” She then presented scientific evidence revealing the creation of a culture through cumulative exposure that supports hatred and injustice:
Research on music [for example] has demonstrated that exposure to violent rap videos increases adversarial sexual beliefs (viewing men and women as enemies in the sexual sphere), negative mood, and acceptance of relationship violence. Additionally, violent music lyrics have been shown to increase aggressive thoughts and feelings. Across a number of studies in which researchers controlled for artist, style and other relevant factors, results showed conclusively that it was the aggressive content that caused the observed changes.
She went on to say,
Recent research on common depictions of popular video game characters shows blatant stereotyping. Black males are more likely than other characters to carry guns and to fit the definition of a ‘thug’ or ‘gangsta’, and much more likely to be depicted as athletes. This is troubling given that research shows that simply knowing a society’s endorsement of a ‘Black criminal’ stereotype is enough to make video game players shoot more unarmed Black targets than unarmed White targets.
During the question and answer period following her testimony, Dill emphasized the link between stereotypical content and aggressive content and urged Congress “to recognize the deception involved with defending these harmful messages as freedom of expression.” She also advocated for implementation of a media literacy curriculum in schools so that if a child hears aggressive and harmful messages “she is better equipped to deal with them.” To view Dill’s testimony in its entirety, please click here.
Click here to view a picture from the hearing.
[back to top]
Energy Hearing Provides Forum for Testimony by Social Psychologists
On September 25, APA Fellow Robert Cialdini and APA Member Duane Wegener testified before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology in a hearing entitled: The Contribution of the Social Sciences to the Energy Challenge. Chairman Brian Baird opened the hearing by saying, “This Committee and this Congress have held countless hearings on the energy technologies of tomorrow. What we don’t talk about is behavior – and how changes in behavior can start making a big dent in our energy challenge today.”
The hearing charter asked the witnesses to respond to a variety of questions including: What have you learned about what influences the decisions individuals make with respect to energy use? How can this research be used more effectively to inform policy? What basic social psychological research questions relevant to the energy challenge remain unanswered? Are there as yet undeveloped or underdeveloped technologies or methodologies that would help advance this research?
Drs. Cialdini and Wegener rose to the challenge describing pithy examples of counterintuitive research results and the role of interdisciplinary teams, respectively, in understanding a range of energy-related issues. For example, Cialdini’s testimony referenced his research in the hospitality industry in which he examined the note cards hotels leave in bathrooms to encourage guests to re-use their towels. His findings suggested that how those messages are framed can dramatically affect the extent to which guests change their behavior. In his testimony, Wegener, who is an Initiative Leader for Social, Economic, and Political Aspects of Energy Use and Policy with the Energy Center at Discovery Park, Purdue University, was able to describe how coupling social scientists with engineers in the early phases of research and development could help identify potential roadblocks to the adoption of new energy technologies (e.g., genetically engineered biofuels) before they hit the market. Dr. Wegener’s group recently received an NSF grant to support the work of the Center via the Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) competition.
Science GRO staff worked closely with Drs. Cialdini and Wegener in the weeks prior to the hearing to help them construct testimony and facilitate all the logistics associated with their appearance before the Subcommittee.
Click here to view pictures from the hearing.
[back to top]
FDA Drug Abuse Advisory Subcommittee Re-Constituted
In August, a seven-year effort waged by APA, the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) and other scientific societies finally paid off with the reinstatement of a Drug Abuse Advisory Subcommittee at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Drug Abuse Advisory Committee (DAAC) was originally chartered in 1978 to serve a number of functions, including 1) advising on the scheduling of new medications with possible abuse potential; 2) providing guidance regarding new medications for the treatment of substance use disorders; and 3) developing guidelines relevant to substance abuse issues.
In 2000, when FDA announced that the DAAC was being dissolved, the drug abuse research community registered its concern in letters to, and in meetings with, FDA staff. Meanwhile, in response to a growing number of problematic post-marketing surveillance issues, the FDA chartered a new Drug Safety and Risk Management (DSaRM) Committee in 2002. In what appeared to be a compromise gesture, drug abuse issues were to be included in a standing Drug Abuse Advisory Subcommittee under the parent DSaRM; however that subcommittee was never populated and disappeared from the language of subsequent DSaRM Charters. Further, although the DSaRM members were identified as having expertise in a range of important fields such as epidemiology, risk management, and internal medicine, none of the members of the DSaRM were identified as experts in drug abuse. Across the years, Science Government Relations staff, working in conjunction with CPDD, continued to assert the need for a DAAC-like entity at FDA and submitted the names of dozens of recognized experts in drug abuse research for FDA’s consideration. Finally, in August, FDA notified APA that six of the APA/CPDD nominees had been accepted to serve on the Drug Abuse Advisory Subcommittee.
General information about FDA Advisory Committees and scheduled meetings can be found here.
[back to top]
First Friends of NIAAA Briefing Will Focus on Underage Drinking
Science GRO staff, working in conjunction with the Addiction, Treatment and Recovery Caucus in the House of Representatives, is organizing the first Friends of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) educational briefing to be held over lunch (12:00-2:00) on November 15 in room B-340 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The briefing will focus on underage drinking and will follow a model GRO staff have used successfully for Friends of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) educational briefings.
To begin the briefing, NIAAA Director Dr. Ting-Kai Li will provide an overview of the lifespan approach NIAAA has developed to anchor its strategic planning and inform its Underage Drinking Research Initiative. APA Fellow Dr. Mark Goldman, Distinguished Research Professor and Director, Alcohol and Substance Use Research Institute, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, will then describe the extent and nature of underage drinking and explain how it fits in a developmental framework. For the third presentation, APA Fellow Dr. Sandra Brown, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, will discuss her research on intervening with underage drinkers in various settings. Finally, Ms. Mimi Fleury, Founder of Community of Concern, will share her thoughts on how to take action as a parent, in schools, and at the community level.
The briefing is meant to complement NIAAA’s collaboration with the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, which recently released “A Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking”. Science GRO staff are looking for other organizations interested in co-sponsoring this first briefing and in developing additional initiatives with the Friends of NIAAA. For more information about organizational co-sponsorship of this briefing, please contact Anne Bettesworth.
[back to top]
New APA Science Policy Fellow Placed at Department of Defense
Deborah Weber, PhD, a psychologist and APA member with an extensive background in education and neuroscience, will spend the year as APA’s 2007-2008 Science Policy Fellow working in the Department of Defense’s Counterintelligence Field Activity. Weber will work on research projects related to counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Application information for the 2008-2009 Science Policy Fellowship Program may be found here. Applications are due January 8, 2008. For more information please contact Science Government Relations’ Dr. Heather Kelly.
[back to top]
Virginia Tech Psychologist Discusses Research on School Shooting on Capitol Hill
Danny Axsom, PhD, a social psychologist at Virginia Tech, represented APA at a September 18-19 Capitol Hill Lobby Day designed to support funding increases at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Axsom joined more than 40 scientists, engineers, and educators in visiting over 65 congressional offices from 11 states during a whirlwind two days of advocacy training and meeting with Members of Congress and their staff. He and his team met with five offices from the Virginia delegation, including both Senators (Warner-R and Webb-D) and three Representatives (Boucher-D, Scott-D and Wolfe-R). Scientists advocated for the Senate’s proposed increase in overall funding for NSF in FY08 as Congress heads towards either conference negotiations on the appropriations bill funding NSF or a large, omnibus bill funding numerous federal agencies. Axsom’s NSF-funded research was particularly timely to discuss with appropriators, given his data on anxiety, depression and coping styles in 800 undergraduate women at Virginia Tech collected prior to the mass shooting and his ability now to follow up post-shooting with that sample.
[back to top]
National Children’s Study Research Plan Under Review
For the past seven years, the National Children’s Study (NCS) has been in the planning and development phase. As the NCS moves into the initial recruitment and implementation phase, the Program Office solicited comments from the public on the research study plan. APA solicited comments from its members and committees and submitted these comments to the NICHD on September 25. In addition, the National Academies of Sciences’ Committee on National Statistics has appointed a panel to provide a peer review of the NCS research plan and is charged with assessing the scientific rigor of the NCS and the extent to which it is being carried out with methods, measures, and collection of data and specimens to maximize the scientific yield of the study. A report from the panel is expected by next summer.
[back to top]
Psychological Scientists Speak Out on NIH Peer Review
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently asked for comments about its peer review system—what works and what doesn’t. APA spread the word through division listservs, encouraging psychologists to respond. Here is a sample of the concerns and suggestions that psychological scientists shared with us.
“My main concern with the peer review process is with the selection and qualifications of the reviewers. I understand it is becoming harder for NIH to attract senior investigators into the peer review process and many times applications are reviewed by reviewers who in reality are not peers of the applicant, either because they are not experts in the field of the application, or because they have never obtained a competitive application, or are in reality junior investigators. My suggestion is that NIH should find a way of providing incentives to senior investigators to form part of the review process. This could be done in a number of ways; either the criteria for selection of reviewers becomes more specific and stringent, or ways are developed to motivate senior experts.”
--Glorisa Canino, PhD, University of Puerto Rico
“… No one without tenure should be on a study section. Takes too much time better spent getting work out. Until the entire system is changed, I think it's cruel to ask an assistant professor to do such a huge service job.”
--Evelyn Satinoff, PhD, University of Delaware
“…Although we can certainly offer our personal opinions of what works (and what doesn't) from a consumer or reviewer's point of view, we can also encourage the NIH to make use of the extensive empirical and theoretical work on decision making. One example is the article by Hal Arkes in Psychological Science that encourages the use of disaggregated ratings…: (www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.01410).”
--Noel Brewer, PhD, University of North Carolina
“…Reviewers should be paid reasonable consulting rates for both the time spent in reviewing proposals and attending the panel meetings. In exchange, reviewers should not submit proposals to be reviewed by the panel on which they serve during their tenure on that panel.”
--Norman Hoffmann, PhD, Evince Clinical Assessments
“The most important aspect of an application is creativity, but it is probably insufficiently rewarded. It is extremely hard to get innovative research funded because NIH is too risk-averse, and you can't have innovation without risk…There is too much emphasis on incremental contributions to science and not enough on creative redirections and reinitiations.”
--Bob Sternberg, PhD, Tufts University
“…I think it is also important to have behavioral scientists be part of the review process for the multidisciplinary applications, especially for clinical research. Many of the multidisciplinary applications are reviewed by special study sections, which are appointed by Scientific Review Administrators. Behavioral issues will not get enough attention unless behavioral scientists participate in the review process.”
--Karen Matthews, PhD, University of Pittsburgh
APA submitted comments on behalf of its member scientists, encouraging that NIH increase training of study section members, including training that adds value to the experience of serving on study sections, and develops pilot data on proposed changes in the peer review system before implementing them broadly. Comments from APA members helped form the basis of the association’s comments.
While the NIH comment period has closed for now, the APA ‘comment period’ never closes. We remain interested in your opinions about NIH peer review. Please share your views by contacting Pat Kobor.
[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] |
