Support the NIH Peer Review System

Coalition to Protect Research

(CPR)

"When we looked at the public-health relevance, there was no question that these projects should have been funded and should continue to be funded."

NIH Director Elias Zerhouni

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/13/04

******

"I strongly urge the Members to resist the temptation to select a few grants for defunding because they do not like the sound of them based on one paragraph out of what probably was a number of pages of information. It would set a dangerous precedent and put a chill on medical research if we start to micromanage individual NIH grants.

This has worked well over the years. We have had enormous progress because of these grants in achieving medical knowledge and giving the public a better health care system. I do not think this body, this committee, wants to get into the process of reviewing 120,000 grants and trying to pick 40,000 out of that group for funding."

Rep. Ralph Regula -- Chairman, House

Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee,

fHouse floor July 11, 2003

******

I have served on the subcommittee that deals with NIH for a long time, and the one thing I came to understand very quickly is that the day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in the House of Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country. We have no business making political judgments about those kinds of issues.

Rep. David Obey -- Ranking Member, House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, House floor July 11, 2003

******

"When you look at the impact of sexually transmitted disease, you're talking about HIV/AIDS and many others that affect millions of people and their reproductive lives."

NIH Director Elias Zerhouni

USA Today, Jan. 13, 2004

******

"Decisions about medical research should be made by scientists, not by politicians promoting an ideological agenda.”

Democratic House Leader

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, July 2003

******

"Here we have people saying, 'I don't like how that disease was contracted, so I don't want to study that disease.' It's equivalent to sticking your head in the sand. It's very important that the scientific community rises up and objects to the imposition of ideology in these areas."

Alan Leshner, President and CEO, AAAS, Washington Post, 1/19/04

CPR sponsors Congressional briefing -- Lost in Translation: Public Health Implications of Sexual Health Research

The Scientific, Public Health, and Advocacy Community Reacts

Statements of Support

Editorials

NIH Responds to Congress (Download letter to Congress)

CPR Sends Letter of Support to Dr. Zerhouni Dr. Zerhouni

2002 Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior

Member Organizations

Become a Member of CPR -

download membership form (pdf)

******

****************

For more information about the Coalition contact:

Angela Sharpe (COSSA) at (202) 842-3525

Karen Studwell (APA ) at (202) 336-5585

The Coalition to Protect Research (CPR) requests your support in upholding the integrity of the scientific merit review process and asks that you oppose legislative amendments or language that seek to restrict funding for peer-reviewed research.

The scientific peer review process is the gold standard for determining the quality and relevance of grant proposals. Outside scientists from many of our nation’s most prestigious universities with expertise in their fields of research make independent and objective evaluations of each proposal submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Advisory councils with public representation also approve studies before they are funded by the NIH.

· Biomedical and behavioral research across the federal government has led to important advances in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of many public health challenges, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and sexually transmitted diseases. Years of basic research were necessary before clinical applications are ready.

· Sexual health issues impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Difficulties in sexual arousal are connected to infertility, heart disease, diabetes, and depression. High-risk sexual behaviors exacerbate the public health challenges of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

· Congress has an oversight responsibility to ensure that proper policies and procedures are in place to determine the allocation of scarce federal research funds. By protecting the scientific peer review system, Congress ensures that only high quality research will be funded with public dollars.

· The 2001 Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior recognized that sexual health is a public health issue. The report explicitly calls for additional federal investments in basic research in human sexual development, sexual health, reproductive health, as well as social and behavioral research on risk and protective factors for sexual health.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Coalition to Protect Research is a coalition of organizations committed to promoting public health through research. Our organizations represent scientists, physicians, health care providers, and patients that support federal investments in basic biomedical and behavioral research in human sexual development, sexual health, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Sexual health and behavior research is needed to provide a scientific foundation for sound public health prevention and intervention programs.

If you have any questions, please contact CPR’s Co-Chairs, Angela Sharpe of the Consortium of Social Science Associations at alsharpe@cossa.org or (202) 842-3525 or Karen Studwell of the American Psychological Association at kstudwell@apa.org or (202) 336-5585.

Updated 01/12/2005