![]() |
|||
|
The Working Group released an inventory of basic behavioral and social research in each of the NIH institutes that reported supporting it, with titles of some grants shown as examples. It also released a report with recommendations on how to strengthen basic research. Those recommendations were: 1) Task the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) with coordinating trans-institute basic research initiatives, and 2) to designate a home for basic research that is not differentiated by disease by establishing a branch or a program in a non-categorical institute (either the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which funds basic research; the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; or the National Institute on Aging). While the latter recommendation technically overreached the group’s charge, Waite explained to the Advisory Council that undifferentiated basic research needs a home at NIH, especially now that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is refocusing its research portfolio toward translational research. Several NIH institutes support basic research, but even though basic questions are being addressed, they are often posed in populations reflecting, or within the context of, the disease mission of those institutes. Waite characterized the first recommendation as encouraging basic research in a “top-down” approach, through Requests for Applications, and the second as a means to provide a stable home where investigator-initiated basic research would be welcomed. Zerhouni and the advisory committee expressed several concerns about the second
recommendation. Some advisory committee members asked why NSF was not the more
appropriate home for this type of basic behavioral and social science research.
Zerhouni noted the tightening budgets at NIH and appeared to question why he
or the advisory council ought to dictate to any institute what sort of research
it should fund. He didn’t question the importance of the research, but
noted that the amount of basic research tallied in the report, approximately
$936 million, was not an insignificant amount of money. The Working Group members
noted that the inventory they developed showed that almost all examples of basic
research included in the $936 million were projects posed within the context
of the disease missions of the institutes. The challenge in the meeting was
to explain why undifferentiated basic behavioral and social science was as relevant
to health as, for example, undifferentiated research on cellular function. Even if the reception by the Advisory Committee was more tentative than hoped, APA and other organizations will share the Working Group’s recommendations with congressional allies and discuss them with individual institutes to see if a more welcoming climate can be established for basic behavioral and social sciences research at NIH. While the report is still in draft form now, the Director’s Advisory Committee is expected to discuss its approval before the committee’s next meeting in June 2005. The draft report and inventory are online at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/Activities/Basic%20Beh%20Report_complete.pdf.
For additional information, see: Membership of the NIH Director's Advisory Committee
at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/acd.htm
and the Charge to the Working Group on Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences
Research at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/Activities/BasicResearch.html.
|
||
|
© 2009 American Psychological Association Science Directorate 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002-4242 Phone: 202-336-6000 TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123 Fax: 202-336-5953 E-mail PsychNET® | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us |
|||