October 8, 1998
Virginia S Cain, Ph.D.
Special Assistant to the Director
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
National Institutes of Health
Building One, Room 326
One Center Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892
Dear Dr. Cain:
This letter is written on behalf of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in response to your request for comments by October 9, 1998 on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Behavioral and Social Sciences Review Integration. Two of our scientific societies (the American Psychological Association and the Linguistic Society of America), also members of COSSA, are sending additional communications.
We appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to obtaining the input of the social and behavioral science community in this very important restructuring. A peer review system that is sensitive to social and behavioral science research is absolutely essential to furthering the health and well-being of our nation, and your work has already contributed substantially to that end.
Since receiving this draft several weeks ago, there have been several meetings of social and behavioral science organizations to consider the proposed change. Also, on October 2, 1998, COSSA, ASA, and AAA jointly held a one-day forum for a group of scientists who have served as both NIH grantees and reviewers. In this latest meeting, we discussed and worked through your entire document. While our recommendations flow from all of this effort, it specifically reflects the work undertaken on October 2nd.
In offering these recommendations, we were attentive to NIH’s overarching goals in undertaking this restructuring; that is, to reflect the current state-of-the-science, to anticipate future developments in science, and to ensure a peer review process that identifies the most meritorious projects. Because it is only in recent years that NIH has become more open to the inclusion of social and behavioral aspects of health, the current NIH funding does not yet adequately reflect the depth of the current science or promising opportunities in these fields. This is generally the case and even more so for the non-psychological sciences within the social and behavioral sciences. Thus, our recommendations in part are directed to helping NIH alter this situation by devising a study section structure that best provides merit review for all social and behavioral science while sending a signal of this openness widely across the science community.
The recommendations set forth below and in the attachment address the following restructuring issues: (1) the basic framework for study sections being proposed, (2) the approach used for delineating “examples of expertise,” (3) the inclusion in the draft of underserved populations, in particular racial and ethnic minorities, and (4) the attention to comparative and non-U.S. research. Additionally, we offer recommendations on (5) the composition of review panels and (6) evaluation of the new structure.
Recommendation 1: Revise Study Section Clusters. While still retaining the administrative convenience of two overall clusters, we recommend an alteration in and renaming of the basic framework to “Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Study Sections” and “Risk, Health, Intervention, and Prevention Study Sections.” The proposed new framework (1) recognizes basic research being done in the social sciences; (2) better captures the interactions of basic science study sections; (3) strengthens the connections between risk, disorder, and intervention study sections; and (4) avoids making false distinctions between the social and behavioral sciences or concluding that behavioral science or basic science is just another name for psychological science.
This recommendation includes a realignment of study sections within the two clusters to comport with this new framework and a division of study section RHSS-1 into two sections - one emphasizing basic science and the other focusing on interventions. This framework is set forth below:
RHSS: (heading titles are provided as background only)
BBS: (heading titles are provided as background only)
RHSS: (heading titles are provided as background only)
BBS: (heading titles are provided as background only)
Recommendation 2: Revised Approach for Providing “Examples of Expertise.” Currently the “Examples of Expertise” for the study sections mix methodological expertise, disciplinary background, and substantive arenas of specialization. Although we recognize the desire to convey a great deal of information about expertise, we believe that the mixed approach confuses forms of expertise and may suggest that certain fields of science or disciplines are excluded from some study sections. Although we provided some editing in the attached revised draft that is more inclusive of additional disciplines, we recommend that the “Examples of Expertise” be revised to highlight and illustrate the areas of expertise required irrespective of disciplinary training or background.
By way of illustration, we offer one example. Study Section BBS-2 (now proposed as BBSS-7) might be revised as follows: “Social, cultural and behavioral aspects of stress and coping; measurement of individual and group-level emotional experience and expression; individual, familial, group, and community experiences; central and autonomic psychophysiological responses; hormonal, neural, and biological aspects of stress.”
Recommendation 3: Inclusion of Race and Ethnicity. The current descriptions of study sections do not sufficiently communicate the importance of basic research as well as risk, intervention, and prevention studies specifically addressed to the health and well-being of racial and ethnic minorities. Given the need for more attention to the diverse populations that comprise the United States, the study section narratives and examples need to highlight where basic and applied research on racial and ethnic minorities would fit. Also, in terms of methods and measurement, serious work on racial and ethnic minorities is far too absent and should be explicitly encouraged.
Recommendation 4: Attention to Comparative and non-U.S. Research. The current draft would benefit from more explicit consideration of the importance of comparative designs and, where appropriate, non-U.S. samples and study sites. Scientific research on social and behavioral aspects of health and well-being needs to be pursued in settings and on populations that are most appropriate for addressing the scientific issues being examined irrespective of national borders. Also, our knowledge of health would be advanced by comparative designs that permit more explicit testing of contextual effects and identifying generalizable patterns. Through modest revision of the current descriptions of study sections, NIH could better convey this commitment to both peer reviewers and applicants.
Recommendation 5: Composition of Review Panels. Any restructuring of study sections is highly dependent on the composition of the review panels. While descriptions of study sections (both the “General Statements” and “Specific Areas”) can send signals across the social and behavioral sciences about “Intellectual homes” for the consideration of research, the probabilities of funding (holding merit constant) is dependent upon the expertise within the group undertaking the review. Study sections should be drawn widely from across the social and behavioral science community. If there is not a critical mass of persons with similar disciplinary training or expertise on review panels, it is unlikely that NIH-funded research will reflect the breadth and depth of opportunity within the social and behavioral sciences. Also, in composing truly qualified review panels, special efforts must be made to recruit and include more racially and ethnically diverse scientists.
Recommendation 6: Evaluation of New Structure. The effort to restructure and integrate the social and behavioral science study sections at NIH is a commendable reform. As with any major structural or institutional change, it is important to track its implementation and assess both its intended and unintended consequences. Therefore, we recommend that an evaluation of the new model be undertaken and that this be designed and conducted with the benefit of social science expertise in evaluation research.
We are enclosing a revised draft of the NIH Behavioral and Social Science Review Integration that makes specific changes consonant with our recommendations. We are providing this document to facilitate your work and to clarify how the above recommendations could be effectively implemented in any revision you undertake.
We would be pleased to discuss this further and are prepared to help in any other way that we can. Best wishes as you approach the final stages of this process.
Sincerely,
Felice Levine, Ph.D., Executive Officer, American Sociological Association
Chair, Executive Committee, Consortium
of Social Science Associations
Angela Sharpe, MG, Associate Director for Government Affairs Consortium of Social Science Associations
Mary Margaret Overbey, Ph.D., Director of Government Relations American Anthropological Association