Testimony
on behalf of the
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences
Consortium of Social Science Associations
American Psychological Association
regarding the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations
for research programs at the
and
by
Patrice O'Toole
Assistant Director, Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences
before the House Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
The Honorable John E. Porter, Chair
March 7, 2000
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Patrice O'Toole. I am the Assistant Director of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences. I am testifying today on behalf of the scientific societies that comprise the Federation, the American Psychological Association, the Society for Research in Child Development, and the Consortium for Social Science Associations. Our organizations represent most of the scientists who carry out the nation=s educational research and many of the scientists who carry out its health-related research. My testimony will, therefore, be directed at the funding requests for those two areas of research.
I want to begin by thanking Chairman Porter for his support and efforts on behalf of the scientific community. During his entire tenure in Congress, Mr. Porter has been a champion of biomedical and behavioral and social science research. The American people are healthier today because of the basic and applied research Mr. Porter=s work has made possible.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
The Office of Educational Research and Improvement has been profiting from the leadership shown by Assistant Secretary Kent McGuire. The quality of peer review, which has been a concern both to Congress and to the scientific community has increased markedly, and further strengthening is taking place. Dr. McGuire has been giving direction and form to the initiatives of OERI. We are particularly pleased that the second round of proposal solicitations for the Interagency Education Research Initiative has just begun. One of the problems in educational research has always been that there has not been enough money to carry out research on large-scale applications. The combined funding of OERI, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is helping to make such research a possibility. The funds available even from three sources hardly approaches the funds that go into clinical trials of new pharmaceuticals, but this program is a big step in the right direction. As you know, NICHD was not able to contribute funds to the first round of grants. NICHD=s requested funding for this effort for FY 2001 is still less than that contributed by the other partners. We ask that NICHD=s contribution be raised to $20 million to make it an equal partner in this important undertaking both in terms of intellectual effort and in terms of funds.
NICHD and OERI are also cooperating in an initiative to identify the factors that lead to acquisition of English reading and writing skills for children whose first language is Spanish. The statistics that reflect the difficulty Spanish speaking children encounter in school are well known. We think the OERI/NICHD partnership to improve this situation are to be welcomed and fully supported.
We also believe OERI is on track with its implementation of Comprehensive School Reform Demonstrations and its general effort to measure the impact of school reforms. It has so often been the case in education that new approaches are implemented with little concern for the research base supporting them and even less concern about evaluating outcomes. There are some positive signs that OERI is helping to change that, and these efforts need to be encouraged.
Before the last reauthorization of OERI, one of the most glaring omissions from OERI=s research programs was a robust program of field-initiated research. We have been delighted to see the gradual change that has occurred over the years of the current authorization. From less than $1 million before the reauthorization, the field-initiated research program has grown to about $15 million. It is a small amount when compared to the amounts NSF, and NIH spend on research whose subject matter has been determined by researchers rather than by federal directives, but again, the steps have been in the right direction.
While we believe that much more emphasis is needed on basic, applied, and development research to improve teaching and learning, we are strongly supporting the requested $30 million funding increase requested for research and statistics by OERI. Space does not permit a thorough treatment of the value of the statistics gathering work of the National Center for Education Statistics. It is this work, however, that tells us enough about teaching, learning, and their lifelong effects to make it possible to devise evidence-based public policies that address real problems in effective ways. These statistics have been valuable precisely because they are measures of the state of education and learning. We have been concerned for years that NCES has been brought into the effort to design national tests. Our concern has been and remains that NCES=s involvement in development of high-stakes testing will undermine the ability of NCES to be perceived across the nation as an objective, impartial evaluator of the state of education in the country. There is room to debate the wisdom of national tests. It is unfortunate, however, that we have been unable so far to keep that divisive issue from endangering the ability of NCES to keep its finger on the nation=s educational pulse.
Finally with respect to OERI, we are disturbed that the Department of Education has chosen to present its request for OERI research programs as a single line item, a move that is consistent with the design for OERI being proposed in OERI=s reauthorization draft, but that is inconsistent with the current structure. There are items of the proposed reauthorization with which we take issue. We support the overall request, but note that it is out of place to make assumptions in the budget presentation about the future structure of OERI before an authorization has been passed in either house.
The administration is requesting a $1 billion increase this year for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This would increase NIH=s budget to nearly $19 billion. This is an increase that is substantially lower than needed to stay on track to doubling the research budget over five years. We are asking Congress to stay on track toward doubling the budget by increasing the budget by 15% which would bring the FY2001 budget to $20.5 billion. Beyond the expressed commitment of many in Congress to accomplish this doubling, we also base our recommendation on several observations.
1. Fulfilling NIH=s priorities for FY2001, which include increased attention to health disparities research, requires the increased funding. 2. Solid funding has increased the pace of discovery across the health sciences, and nothing should slow that momentum. 3. Health care costs have become unbearable for millions. The best way to control those costs is to keep people healthy. The ultimate purposes of health research, including health research in the behavioral and social sciences, is to make the citizens of this country healthier throughout their life span.
Let me mention just a few of the uses to which the funding increase would be put.
NIH has established a working group, lead by NIH Acting Deputy Director Yvonne Maddox and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, to examine health disparities. In addition, NIH=s FY2001 budget contains a request for $20 million to establish within the Office of Research on Minority Health (ORMH) a Coordinating Center for Health Disparities. We support this request.
The Human Genome Project is expected to complete human gene sequencing by this summer. Already NIH has been at the forefront of research in genetics and neuroscience. That research is helping us understand many diseases including Parkinson=s, Alzheimer=s, drug addiction and diabetes. With sequencing nearing completion, we are poised for an explosive growth in discoveries in the years ahead.
Scientific advances in knowledge about brain disease have been possible because of new methods for the study of the nervous system, such as neuroimaging. Identifying the molecules that guide the formation of the brain and increasing understanding of how the processes occur are allowing neurobiologists to visualize how the developing nervous system organizes itself, to explain complex behaviors, and to describe neurological and psychiatric diseases with a new level of precision. However, equally important is the role that behavioral, psychological, socio-cultural, and environmental factors play in health. Our beliefs, our emotions, our behavior, our thoughts, our family and cultural systems, our socio-economic status, as well as the environmental context in which we live, are all as relevant to our health as our genetic inheritance and our physiology.
The emergence of cross-disciplinary collaboration has been a major component in the fast-paced research developments in these arenas. Across the NIH-supported sciences, the growing tendency for scientists from many disciplines to come together to solve research problems has shown significant results.
AIDS has not been cured, but research has shown how a mixture of treatments can ward off the worst effects of AIDS, for many years. These treatments involve the use of a variety of drugs in combination and they involve a demanding level of discipline on the part of the patient to take the medications properly---a discipline that can be trained by application of techniques developed through behavioral research.
Similarly, recent NIH-supported behavioral research has produced useful new knowledge, including a better understanding of basic behavioral and social processes and how they interact with biological processes. This understanding is coming from many lines of research: studies of lifestyle choices, dietary habits, the desire and ability to maintain exercise or medication regimens, psychological functioning, and influences of one=s social and cultural environment on behavior.
All these lines of research converge to give us a picture of the factors that can affect an individual=s ability to remain healthy or to recover from disease or to function well despite a chronic condition. And that knowledge leads to treatments and other interventions to maintain health throughout the life span.
NIH's Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), created in 1995 has been pivotal in supporting these studies and translating the findings into effective prevention and treatment strategies. OBSSR, under the purview of the Office of the Director of NIH, coordinates all the institutes and centers in marshaling their individual resources to collaborate on behavioral and social sciences research. OBSSR's congressionally mandated primary mission is to foster the development of cross-disciplinary communication and research collaboration among behavioral and social sciences and between the behavioral and social sciences and biomedical sciences.
OBSSR, under the auspices of its first Director, Norman Anderson, has achieved great success in its short existence. We believe it can accomplish a great deal more with the continued support of Congress and the necessary resources to do so. A key role for OBSSR has been assuring that development of effective behavioral interventions is keeping pace with technological advances.
OBSSR has been successful, yet continues to operate with a small staff and a small budget. Last year, Congress approved a $7 million increase for OBSSR to continue its efforts to encourage cross-institute collaboration and research in the behavioral and social sciences. This money is being used to fund a trans-NIH initiative on adherence to medical and behavioral interventions across a number of diseases and conditions. OBBSR is also funding a trans-NIH initiative seeking effective interventions to curb youth violence. And as episodes of violence between children mounts, the need for these programs is critical to reducing the overall level of violence. More research is needed on children and youth at risk. We need a richer understanding of the social, environmental, psychological, developmental and biological factors involved in risk as well as a deeper understanding of how the factors interact.
Despite the pressing need for this research, the President's request for FY2001 provides no increase for OBSSR=s budget. OBSSR's current budget is $19.86 million. The Federation supports an increase of ten percent for OBSSR, bringing its budget to $21.84 million for FY2001. This increase would significantly augment OBSSR=s ability to continue coordinating research across institutes. This is an efficient use of resources and a beneficial mode of operation, because it links areas of related knowledge that might otherwise remain separated.
A prime example of benefits of behavioral research has been the identification of factors that aid in protection from disease and that promote recovery from illness. They include certain personal attributes such as optimism, effective strategies for coping with stress, and meaningful sources of social support and affiliation.
NIH funding has permitted us to use research wisely, that is, in the combinations that will be most efficient in reaching solutions to typically multifaceted health problems. To continue successful biomedical and behavioral research at this level requires Congress= ongoing commitment to finding resources for expanding NIH=s budget.
With increased support, the current pace of discovery and collaboration can be sustained. The largest per person expenditures for health care occur near the end of life. One goal of research is to understand what interventions through the life span will have the greatest promise of assuring that the period of great illness before the end of life is minimized. As more of the U.S. population reaches advanced age---the number of Americans aged 65 and older is expected to double by the year 2030 to nearly 68 million---it becomes increasingly vital to the health of our entire society that we age well. Many of the problems that accompany aging, especially chromic diseases, stem from behaviors that place individuals at risk of negative outcomes.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) conducts research on human growth and development from conception through birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, reproduction, and through maturity to old age. As such, NICHD addresses some of the most important health and development problems facing our children and families.
Based on this broad spectrum of research, we believe that NICHD=s FY2001 budget should be increased by 15 percent, bringing budget to $987.643 million. Historically and chronically, NICHD has been one of the lowest funded institutes even though it conducts research that has immediate, proven and successful applications through behavioral intervention. We urge the subcommittee to press for higher funding of NICHD.
Behavioral research has a large role to play in contributing to the nation=s health, because controllable choices and behaviors in life have a heavy impact on the quality of life. Obviously, such behavioral choices as to smoke or not to smoke, what foods and quantities of food to consume, and how regularly one exercises are among the most important choices we make in determining our health. But each of us knows how difficult it is to do the right thing.
Behavioral researchers in cooperation with nutritional researchers, neuroscientists, epidemiologists and a host of other specialists are working to find ways to make it easier for people to make the right choices about their health. The payoff for finding solutions to these problems will be not only a healthier population, but also the shrinkage of health care costs to a manageable size without sacrificing the well-being of the country=s citizens. Through research it is becoming possible to maintain good health and keep health care costs down at the same time.
We strongly urge the Subcommittee to recommend a 15 percent increase for NIH because the investment in knowledge will result in healthier citizens and health care cost savings that far exceed the research investment. Slighting research will assure that rising health care costs will remain among our most serious national crises.
We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our views.