After several years of stagnation, federal spending on science may be on the upswing. President Obama's fiscal 2016 budget proposal, released in February, included increases for the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Veterans Affairs, among other science-funding agencies. But those funding requests must be approved by Congress.
As the appropriations process moves forward, psychologists can help make sure behavioral and social science gets the funding it deserves, says Heather O'Beirne Kelly, PhD, of APA's Science Government Relations Office, which manages APA's Stand for Science campaign. Initiated in February, the campaign helps psychologists talk to their congressional representatives about how psychological science benefits human health, education and national security.
The Science Government Relations Office regularly leads these types of advocacy efforts in Washington, D.C., arranging congressional meetings, holding advocacy training days and webinars, and publishing resources on how to prepare an effective research briefing. The office has also produced a new online advocacy toolkit.
The goal of the Stand for Science campaign is to more nimbly respond to immediate legislative threats affecting psychological science by quickly deploying advocacy-trained scientists in their home states and districts.
The campaign aims to bring APA members face-to-face with their representatives, in hometown offices or in campus labs, to explain their research.
It's much easier to schedule a visit with representatives while they're in their districts rather than in Washington, D.C., says William Starck, program manager. As of early 2015, 52 psychologists had visited 54 congressional offices. Although most meetings have been with congressional staff, participating psychologists have met with 21 representatives and two senators.
And visiting research labs can help politicians understand and appreciate science. Thus far there have been 11 visits to psychologists' university-based research labs. "Though other communications are important, that hands-on experience brings research to life. Hopefully, representatives remember that when it's time to allocate resources. Our dream would be to have a psychologist who advocates for science research in every district," Starck says.
Last summer, Bethany Teachman, PhD, hosted Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Va., in her lab at the University of Virginia. She showed him the research she's doing on how cognitive biases contribute to anxiety. Hurt talked to many members of the research team and support staff, which helped him see that "it really takes a village to do research," Teachman says.
Not only did the experience teach the congressman more about the work psychological scientists do, but it also provided Teachman's students with a chance to share their work.
"The onus is on us to explain why research is important to public health and how we use tax dollars," she says. "We can't expect to sit in our labs and hope others will do it. Scientists have a huge role to play."
Gary Dunbar, PhD, of Central Michigan University (CMU), invited Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., to visit the school's neuroscience laboratories in October.
"That evening she commented during a stump speech on how impressed she was with the level and quality of research the neuroscience program at CMU was conducting and that this was really an eye-opener for her to learn of the wonderful, potentially life-saving research being conducted right here in her own backyard," he says.
"We made inroads to discussing important issues, like support for neuroscience and behavioral research and resisting the pressure to end or curtail use of animal research that is critically needed to develop new therapies."
Stand for Science also helps psychologists explain what psychological research is and why it matters to politicians who have different levels of scientific understanding, Kelly says.
"Some are supportive of science but don't consider psychology to be a full-fledged science like chemistry or physics. In fact, some are quite antagonistic and don't consider the behavioral and social sciences to be worthy of federal funding at all, especially in times of limited funding," she says.
"Our job is to enhance the understanding of our science among members of Congress. Our science is people doing PTSD work with veterans or ADHD research for your child or so your grandmother can get treatment for dementia. There are many reasons why studying how people behave is going to be something someone on the Hill cares about."
Contact the Science Government Relations Officeopens in new window to learn more about the campaign and federal funding issues.