CPR | 2012 – 2011

Coalition to Promote ResearchNIH Peer Review Quotes

2016  |  2015   |  2014  |  2013  |  2012 – 2011  | 2010  –  2004

2012

National Institutes of Health

Joint Sign-On Letter to Congress in Support of NIH’s Funding of Economic Research

National Organizations and Universities Oppose NIH Economic Research Ban

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

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 ResolutionCPR 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.  

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.

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 …


Coalitions | CPR | CAHT-BSSR | CEDS