Coalition to Promote Research


 

Member Organizations 

******

Become a Member of CPR -

download membership form (pdf)

******

"I think it's a dangerous thing for Congress, or anybody else, to be trying to specify in detail what types of fundamental research NSF should be funding,"

OSTP Director John Holdren, ScienceInsider, 2/18/12

"NSF's mission mandates attention to the entire spectrum of science. Emphasizing some sciences at the expense of others handicaps discovery and compromises innovation."

NSF Director Subra Suresh, PCAST, 1/7/11

******

"Clearly, drug addiction is a serious problem facing our country, and finding new medical treatments is a high priority,"... "I don't know if the critics want us to experiment with humans, or just give up on the problem of drug addiction, but we aren't going to do either."

NIH Director Francis Collins, 8/5/2010

******

"You can make a case that if we just hire people to dig a ditch to nowhere we'd put a lot of people to work, but it wouldn't be laying much of a foundation for the future.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D., Tenn.) WSJ 2010

“We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness torespond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention – or even what kind of prevention – it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values – it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. Bu there must also be a change in hearts and minds, in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist, neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.”

Barack Obama, World AIDS Day Speech, Lake Forest, CA, Dec. 11, 2006

“When you look at a cursory examination of the title or an abstract [of a grant] you don’t have an idea. That’s why we have peer review...Prohibiting specific grants sets a dangerous precedent for scientific research that has progressed and advanced for decades through freedom of inquiry into a broad spectrum of subjects…second guessing peer-review in this way could compromise the fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time.”

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), Chairman of the House Science Committee’s Basic Research Subcommittee on the House floor, May 2, 2007

 

"De-funding meritorious grants on the floor of Congress is unjustified scientific censorship. It undermines the historical strength of American science which is based on our world renowned, apolitical and transparent peer review process."     

  NIH Director Elias Zerhouni 6/23/05

 

******

"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,

 House 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

 

******

“Obviously, in areas such as HIV/AIDS, it’s a sexually-transmitted disease, it’s a disease that is transmitted by injection drug use, by a variety of other mechanisms . . . we cannot avoid addressing the issues that are at the very foundation of why millions and millions of people are getting infected. 

Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, June 2, 2004

******

"Central to the NIH peer-review process is objective evaluation based on a proposal's scientific merit. . . Many would argue that it is the scientific objectivity of this process and the fact that scientists -- not politicians, political appointees, advocacy groups, or lobbyists -- who decide what gets funded, that is in large part responsible for the nation's world leadership in science."

 

 Rep. John Edward Porter -- Former Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education in JAMA September 21, 2005.

 

******

 

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

 

For more information about the Coalition contact:

 

Angela Sharpe (COSSA) at alsharpe@cossa.org, (202) 842-3525

 

or           

 

Karen Studwelll (APA) at kstudwell@apa.org, (202) 336-5585

 

Follow CPR on Find us on Facebook

Principles of Scientific Integrity

The United States benefits from the finest system of biomedical and behavioral health research in the world. Health and other research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been guided by far-sighted policymakers who understand the value of long-term investments in research to improve health, and who have set up a system of the highest quality that allows good science to flourish. Effective policy planning and appropriate, stable funding levels are essential to producing outcomes that save lives and health care costs; enhance the quality of life of our families and children; and improve systems of health care delivery.

We urge the U.S. Congress to uphold the quality of our nation's research enterprise by embracing the following fundamental values that have supported its development and quality. Diminishing these principles can only cause harm to the American people and the rest of the world, by undermining the collective efforts of researchers and clinicians to improve health. We strongly urge Congress and the Executive Branch to support:

1) Relying on scientific merit review (also called 'peer review') to judge the quality and relevance of research proposals. Hundreds of scientists and clinicians from universities and research institutions across the country, representing a wide range of disciplines, volunteer their time and expertise to make the system work. In the competition for funding, fewer than 30 percent of high-quality scientific proposals receive support. This merit review, combined with a second-level review by the scientific and lay (public) members of health advisory councils ensures that scientific merit and public values work together to fund only the best science.

2) Researching all behaviors and conditions that impact public health and all populations who are burdened by that impact. Protection of the public's health requires that all diseases/conditions and relevant behaviors be investigated without the burden of ideological prejudice.

3) Basing health policies on the best available scientific data and knowledge.

4) Including public participation in scientific priority setting. Through established formal mechanisms and public debate, members of Congress and private citizens contribute valuable ideas and expertise to the development of NIH research priorities. As an agency funded with public dollars, NIH and the scientists it entrusts with support work hard to maintain the public trust.

The Scientfiic Community's Statements of Support for the NIH/NSF Peer Review Processes

2011

National Institutes of Health

CPR Letter to Congress Urging Continued Support of the NIH Peer Review- July 26, 2011

Politicizing NIH funding: a bridge to nowhere

Study of Gay Men's Sexual Health Called Waste of Taxpayer Money; Study Not Government-Funded

"Junk science" that could save lives

NIH Awards Highlighted in the Press (7/21)

July 19, 2011 -- The National Instiutes of Health (NIH) has once again come under attack for its support of specific research grants that have gone through the NIH peer review process.  A NIH training grant is currently creating a media firestorm. The Grant: BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES TRAINING IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH (Grant Number: 5T32DA007233-28).

Communicating Research Intent and Value in NIH Applications

Read more. . .

National Science Foundation

Intersociety Letter on behalf of NSF to House Appropriators

The Unexamined Society - David Brooks, NYTimes.com

Protecting the SBE Sciences at NSF

House Panel Scrutinizes Funding of SBE Sciences by NSF

Social Sciences Face Uphill Battle Proving Their Worth to Congress

Coburn Attacks NSF: Calls for Elimination of SBE Directorate

Senator's Criticism of Science Foundation Draws Fire

Scientists Cry Foul Over Report Criticizing National Science Foundation

'Duh' science: Why researchers spend so much time proving the obvious

Read more ...

 

Vote "NO" on the Issa Amendments to H.R. 1

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) submitted the following amendments to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution, legislation to fund the government through September 30, 2011.  The amendments would prohibit selective grants and/or funding of research in certain areas supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and/or the National Science Foundation (NSF).

AMENDMENT NO. 417: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to study the impact of integral yoga on hot flashes in menopausal women.

AMENDMENT NO. 418: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to examine the potential impact of a soda tax on population health.

AMENDMENT NO. 419: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to research the use of marijuana in conjunction with opioid medications, such as morphine.

AMENDMENT NO. 420: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to study condom use skills in adult males.

AMENDMENT NO. 421: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to study the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana among young adults.

AMENDMENT NO. 422: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Science Foundation to study whether video games improve mental health for the elderly.

Politico.com -- Issa's agenda: condoms, yoga, pot

Huffington Post -- 'Darell Issa's Cut to 'Silly Sounding Research Are No Laughing Matter for Scientists"

CPR's Letter to House Members Urging a "NO" Vote on the Issa Amendments -- [PDf]

Issa Amendments to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution

CPR Talking Points - Why Research on Condom Use Matters

Support Peer-Reviewed Research. . .

Since 2003, there continues to be a steady increase in attacks on peer-reviewed research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and more recently, the National Science Foundation (NSF). Congress needs to hear from you. We encourage you to join your fellow scientists and health care professionals in signing a petition supporting scientific principles.  (read more)

NIH Peer Review Revealed

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) has produced a series of videos designed to give an inside look at how scientists from across the country review NIH grant applications for scientific and technical merit. 

NIH Peer Review Revealed provides a front-row seat to a NIH peer review meeting. Real scientists from the scientific community review fictional but realistic grant applications for scientific merit.

CSR created the video below for new applicants and others who want to know how the NIH evaluates the more than 80,000 grant applications it receives each year. With the majority of NIH's budget supporting grants to researchers, these reviews are key to future advancements in science and health.

NIH/CSR - What Happens to Your Grant Application (PDF)

NIH/CSR - How Scientists Are Selected to Participate in the Peer-Review Process (PDF)

Additional information and videos about the peer review process are available on CSR's website.

About Behavioral and Social Sciences Research: From the National Institutes of Health

The 21st century is an exciting time — a revolutionary period for the life sciences. We have learned a lot about the biological parts and systems that make up all living things. We also realize that it is just as important to understand how behavior and society affect health and can help fight disease. Combining information from both biomedical and behavioral and social sciences research will lead to the most effective interventions.

NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) FACT SHEET-Better Living through Behavioral and Social Sciences

YESTERDAY, TODAY & TOMORROW: NIH Research Timelines

Fact Sheets on the NIH website tell the stories of research discovery, current treatment status, and future expectations for the prevention and treatment of diseases and conditions affecting the nation's health. The NIH also include Fact Sheets that describe NIH policies and organizations in place to enhance public health safety and the public understanding of health science.

2003 - 2010

Congressional Briefings Sponsored by CPR

Coalition to Protect Research

Six Degrees of Separation: Using Social Network Research to Inform Public Health and National Security- Executive Summary;Transcript of the Proceedings (2005)

Lost in Translation: Public Health Implications of Sexual Health Research (2004)

2010

Communicating Research Intent and Value in NIH Applications

NIH Releases Video on the Peer Review Process

The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) has produced a series of videos designed to give an inside look at how scientists from across the country review NIH grant applications for scientific and technical merit.

American COMPETES Bill Pulled from House Floor After GOP Maneuver

2009

Support Scientific Integrity

COSSA Responds to Senator Coburn's Proposed Amendment to Eliminate Funding for the National Science Foundation’s Political Science Progra

Roll Call Vote to Eliminate Funding for NSF’S Political Science Program

CPR Expresses its support for NIH Research to the Administration and Congress

CPR ALERT: Support NIH

Show your support for peer-reviewed research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Congress needs to hear from you. We encourage you to join your fellow scientists and health care professionals in signing a petition supporting scientific principles.  (read more)

 

CPR's Letter to the House and Senate Labor-HHS Conferees Regarding the Issa Amendment

 

Barton, Walden Ask NIH for Details of Money Spent on Questionable Studies

 

Lessons Learned From A Public Controversy - ASA's Footnotes

Vote "NO" on Issa Amendment

Talking Points Regarding Substance Use and HIV Risk among Thai Women

Information on studies funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) on Venue-Based Interventions for HIV/AIDS and Alcohol Us

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Priorities Q&A  (Download to Print)      

Support the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Peer Review System    (Download to Print)

COSSA Urges A "NO" Vote on Issa

American Psychological Association's Letter to Congress

American Sociological Association's Statement of Support for NIH Grants

Society for Research in Child Development's Statement of Support for NIH Research

FABBS' Statement of Support for Grants Funded Under NIH's Peer Review System

AAAS CEO describes political interference with health research as "extremely dangerous"

Nature Editorial: Science Under Attack

Read the floor debate (7/24)

The Role of NIH Research in HIV Prevention -- Statement by Anthony S. Fauci,  M.D.,  Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Tuesday, September 16, 2008    

Background and Additional Information

CPR Members

2007

NSF Grants Attacked on House Floor; Defunding Amendments Defeated

Read the floor debate (5/07)

2006 - 2003

Support Scientific Integrity

The scientific community needs your help. For the past three years, there has been a steady increase in attacks on peer-reviewed research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Congress needs to hear from you. We encourage you to join your fellow scientists and health care professionals in signing a petition supporting scientific principles.  (read more)

 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Priorities Q&A  (Download to Print)      

Support the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Peer Review System    (Download to Print)

The Scientific, Public Health, and Advocacy Community Reacts . . . Statements of Support from the Scientific Community

CPR Members

More -- Background and Additional Information on the Issue 

 

 

Last updated: April 29, 2013