THINGS HAVE
CHANGED III
It is
the morning after President Bush’s speech to the joint session of Congress, ten
days after the terrorist attacks. Once
again Washington, and indeed the world, is a changed place. The disputed presidential election and
lingering doubts about the legitimacy of this presidency – gone. The switch of Jim Jeffords to give Democrats
control of the U.S. Senate – ancient history.
Concern about using the social security surplus to pay for government
spending – evaporated. Partisan
bickering over appropriations – finished.
The nation is united for a war against terrorism to, as the President
declared, “lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future.”
For
COSSA, whose office is three blocks from the White House, it has been a time of
contemplating our own good fortune, and to join the rest of the country in
expressions of sorrow over losses and admiration for acts of courage, and to
attempt to make some sense of it all.
There is also a continuing fear of what could happen next that has made
Washington edgy. But life and work does
go on.
Congress
has pledged to cooperate with the President in a bipartisan manner and to move
quickly. Although the original
adjournment target of October 5 will not be met, there is no longer any
discussion of the session running until Thanksgiving or later. The Democratic and Republican leadership,
previously quite chilly in their relationships with each other, are now working
together with a sense of purpose.
Congress has already passed a $40 billion emergency package to help fund
the military response, enhance airport security, help survivors, and rebuild
New York and the Pentagon. It will soon
enact legislation to help the nation’s beleaguered airlines. The Justice Department has submitted
legislation to strengthen its weapons against terrorism.
As for
the FY 2002 appropriations process, everyone acknowledges the need to finish as
soon as possible with a minimum of disagreement. Congress expects to pass a short-term Continuing Resolution to
keep the government operating through the middle of October. Six of the thirteen bills are now ready for
conference, including VA, HUD, Independent Agencies, which includes funding for
the National Science Foundation. Congress
hopes to finish these six bills within the next two weeks and send them to the
President. Differences between House
and Senate versions, for the most part, will get reconciled by splitting those
differences.
The
other seven appropriations bills, including Defense and Labor, HHS, Education,
may get wrapped together in an Omnibus bill some time in mid-October. The administration has announced that it
will not veto any individual appropriation bill as long as the President’s cap
of $679 billion for total discretionary spending is met. Divisive policy riders to these bills are
expected to be minimal. There is a
sense of urgency in bringing spending debates to a close.
With
the economy reeling, the administration and Congress are contemplating attempts
at stimulation. Although the initial
rush to enact further tax cuts, including for capital gains, is on hold because
of statements by Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, something
in this area is expected.
juvenile justice bill clears the
house with bipartisan backing
Enjoying
broad bipartisan support, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 2001 (H.R. 1900) passed the House on September 20. The bill reauthorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) through 2006.
The
bill, sponsored by Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) and cosponsored by Reps. Bobby
Scott (D-VA) and Michael Castle (R-DE), is very similar to the legislation that
passed the House in the last Congress.
It combines the current discretionary programs into a prevention block
grant to the states, which is based on each state’s juvenile population and
crime statistics. The legislation also
calls for a study on gun violence among youths.
After
the original authorizing legislation expired in 1996, attempts at
reauthorization “collapsed in partisan controversy,” according to Rep.
Scott. Following these failures, a
bipartisan working group was convened to review the issue, streamline the
measure, and reduce its controversy. A
group of Democrats expressed their approval that, “instead of emphasizing punishment
and ‘adult-like’ incarceration, H.R. 1900 affirms the rehabilitative purpose of
the juvenile courts while recognizing several present-day realities that state
and local juvenile justice systems face in addressing juvenile crime.”
Rep.
Scott heralded the legislation resulting from the working group as “a
bipartisan agreement that promotes sound juvenile crime policy which is based
on proven research.”
The
bill was considered under suspension of the rules, which speeds up action by
suspending the rules and requires a two-thirds majority vote. Final enactment of the bill awaits passage
by the Senate, which has yet to take up their bill this session. Congress created OJJDP in 1974 to help
states and local communities develop and implement prevention and intervention
programs and improve the juvenile justice system.
NATIONAL
BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION ISSUES FINAL REPORT
The
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) issued its final report, Ethical
and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants on September
12. NBAC, established by Executive
Order in 1995 by President Clinton and chaired by former Princeton University
President Harold T. Shapiro, will be replaced by a new President’s Council on
Bioethics, chaired by Leon Kass, professor and biomedical ethics expert at the
University of Chicago. NBAC’s charter
expires on October 3, 2001. A September
19 meeting by the Commission to discuss outstanding issues was cancelled and
has not been rescheduled.
A key
conclusion of the Commission’s report, observed Acting Executive Director of
NBAC Marjorie Speers, is that the federal oversight system should protect the
rights and welfare of human research participants regardless of whether the
research is publicly or privately sponsored.
NBAC has repeated this assertion throughout its deliberations, and
recommendations in this regard appear in its four previous reports.
To
accomplish this goal, NBAC recommends a “unified, comprehensive federal policy
embodied in a single set of regulations and guidance.” Any central coordinating body, argues the
Commission, should be open to public input, have significant political or legal
authority over research involving human participants and have the support of
the executive and legislative branches of government. Currently no federal entity has the authority to develop policy
for all research involving human participants.
Consequently, the Commission calls for legislation creating a single,
independent federal office.
NBAC
acknowledges that adoption of its recommendations will generate additional
costs for all involved in research, but urges sponsors of research, whether
public or private, to work together with institutions carrying out the research
to make the necessary funds available.
Additional
Ethics Research Needed
NBAC also recognizes that
its report raises many questions about ethical issues that cannot be answered
because of insufficient or nonexistent empirical evidence. “Current thinking about ethical issues in
research – such as analysis of risks
and potential benefits, informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, and
vulnerability – would greatly benefit from
additional research.” Accordingly, the
Commission recommends that the federal government (along with academic institutions
and professional societies) “should facilitate discussion about emerging
research protection issues and develop a research agenda that addresses issues
related to research ethics.”
Ethical and Policy Issues is the result of a review
of the current system for the protection of human participants in
research. Through a series of meetings
held throughout the United States, the Commission examined the effectiveness of
the oversight system, with particular attention to the “Common Rule.” In addition, the Commission investigated the
purpose and structure of the oversight system, ethical issues in the review of
research, and the role of research sponsors, investigators, institutions, and
Institutional Review Boards.
Copies of the report and the
accompanying commissioned papers can be downloaded or requested via the NBAC
website: www.bioethics.gov.
President’s
Council on Bioethics
According
to President Bush, the new President’s Council on Bioethics responsibilities
“will include studying the human and moral ramifications of developments in
biomedical and behavioral science and technology.” In addition, the Council will explore such issues as embryo and
stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, genetic screening, gene
therapy, euthanasia, psychoactive drugs, and brain implants, says the
President. A time frame for appointing
the Council’s members has not been established.
Update on Census and acs
·
The
thorny issue of whether to statistically adjust Census figures to correct for
the undercount (see Update, February 26, 2001) will rear its head again
soon. The Census Bureau is set to
release its recommendation on whether to release adjusted data for
non-apportionment purposes on October 15.
·
The
Census Subcommittee in the House of Representatives is set to expire at the end
of the year, and may be merged with the Civil Service and Agency Organization
Subcommittee, also part of the Government Reform Committee. The Census Monitoring Board is also due to
expire, on September 30 of this year.
·
The
nomination of Louis Kincannon as Director of the Census Bureau, widely regarded
as a highly qualified candidate, has yet to be formally sent to the
Senate. Bill Barron remains as Acting
Director.
American Community Survey
Support
for the American Community Survey (ACS) (see Update, July 30, 2001; June
18, 2001) still seems strong in Congress, despite continuing concerns over some
issues. The full Senate passed its
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill on September 13, which includes funding
for the ACS. “Continuous measurement,”
which covers continued data collection at ACS test sites, was funded at $26.2
million, $0.9 million less than the request.
However, funding for development of the ACS also comes from the Periodic
censuses and programs line item, funded at $348.5 million which, when combined
with a $27 million carryover, brings this account to $375.4 million, $0.8
million above the President’s request.
According
to Chip Walker of the Census Subcommittee, the Bureau will request $130 million
for the ACS in the following fiscal year (FY2003).
Among
concerns that certain members of Congress have with the ACS are:
·
Whether
the ACS should be mandatory: The survey
would replace the long form in the decennial census. People in the Bureau feel that, since the Census is mandatory,
the ACS would be too. However, some
members are concerned that some of their constituents may be unhappy if they
receive the survey (which would be sent to a sample of Americans) more than
once over a ten-year period. Concerns
also include privacy and the confidentiality of responses.
·
Whether
Congress needs to authorize ACS: The
Bureau contends that the ACS, as a cheaper alternative to the long form, is
simply a part of the decennial census (already authorized by Title 13 of the
U.S. Code), and would therefore not need a new authorization. Others fear that, without that express
support, Congress may find it easier to raid ACS funds in the future.
·
How
the content of the survey should be determined: Some members are concerned that the Census 2000 long form was too
long and a burden for their constituents.
Issues yet to be settled include how the questions will be determined,
how many there will be, and what the process will be for changing them.
·
Whether
the sample size is adequate: Some data
users in rural areas are concerned about whether the sample size will be large
enough. The Bureau is worried that if
the sample grows too large, the project will no longer be cost-neutral. Another question is whether sample size will
grow as the country’s population grows.
At a
meeting of organizations that produce and use federal statistics, Terri Ann
Lowenthal, a policy consultant and former Staff Director of a subcommittee that
focused on the Census, suggested that in the aftermath of the recent tragedies,
the statistics community can document the effects of the bombings, using our
expertise to help the nation in this terrible time as well as demonstrating the
societal benefits of statistical research.
CULTURE COUNTS IN mental health
research, says surgeon general
According to a new report by the U.S. Surgeon
General, Mental Health: Culture, Race and Ethnicity, there are
striking disparities in knowledge, access, utilization, and quality of mental
health care for racial and ethnic minorities.
The report is a supplement to the 1999 first-ever Surgeon General’s
report on mental health. A hallmark of
the supplement is its focus on the role culture and society play in mental
health, mental illness, and the types of mental health services people seek.
“Mental health is fundamental to a person’s overall
health, indispensable to personal well-being, and instrumental to leading a
balanced and productive life,” asserted Surgeon General David Satcher. “The revolution in science that has led to
effective treatment for mental illnesses needs to benefit every American of
every race, ethnicity, and culture . . .
Critically, culture counts. That
means that we need to embrace the nation’s diversity in the conduct of research,”
notes Satcher in the 200-page report.
The report acknowledges that more is known about the
disparities than the reasons behind them.
While not the sole determinants, culture and social influences do play
important roles in mental health, mental illness, and service use, when added
to biological, psychological, and environmental factors, the supplement states.
Culture is
broadly defined as a “common heritage or set of beliefs, norms, and
values.” The report also emphasizes
that the term “culture” is as applicable to whites as it is to racial and
ethnic minorities.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy
Thompson called the report “groundbreaking.”
According to the Secretary, “an exemplary feature of this supplement is
its consideration of the relevance of history and culture to our understanding
of mental health, mental illness, and disparities in services. In particular, the national prevention
agenda can be informed by understanding how the strengths of different groups’
cultural and historical experiences might be drawn upon to prevent the
emergence of mental health problems or reduce the effects of mental illness
when it strikes. This supplement takes
a promising first step in this direction.”
A Gap in Knowledge
The report reveals that despite the fact that good science is an
“essential underpinning of the public health approach to mental health and
mental illness, the science base on racial and ethnic minorities is limited,
but growing.” The lack of
ethnic-specific analyses for minority groups, however, “does not mean that
current treatment guidelines are ineffective for racial and ethnic
minorities. It does highlight a gap in
knowledge,” the report says.
The supplement documents that minorities receive
less accurate diagnosis than whites and calls for additional research to
address issues such as clinician bias and diagnostic accuracy.
Addressing the opportunities for researchers to
study culture, Satcher remarked “It is inherently better to prevent an illness
from occurring in the first place than to need to treat it once it
develops. Just as the other areas of
medicine have promoted healthy lifestyles and thereby have reduced the
incidence of conditions such as heart disease and some cancers, so now is the
time for mental health providers, researchers, and policy makers to focus more
on promoting mental health and preventing mental and behavioral disorders.”
For more information, see www.surgeongeneral.gov.
National Academies Release Stem
Cell Research Report
On September 11, scientists and policymakers on
their way to work were likely abuzz about the impending release of the National
Academies’ report, Stem Cell Research and the Future of Regenerative
Medicine. The terrorist attacks of
that day, however, gripped world headlines and placed a hold on unrelated
policy debates. As Congress attempts to
exhibit bipartisanship and unity in the coming weeks, it is likely that votes
on divisive issues such as embryonic stem cell research will be put off,
perhaps until next year.
Once the question of federal funding for this research returns to the
forefront, however, those involved in the debate are sure to turn to the
Academies’ report, which was compiled by a committee formed by the National
Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, as they seek guidance on the
difficult issues facing the government.
The text clarifies what is known about the scientific potential of stem
cells and how advances can be realized, while maintaining a respect for “the
wide array of social, political, legal, ethical, and economic issues that must
be considered in policy-making in a democracy.”
Key points in the report include:
·
Studies
of both embryonic and adult human stem cells will be required to most
efficiently advance the scientific and therapeutic potential of regenerative
medicine.
·
While
there is much that can be learned using existing stem cell lines if they are
made widely available for research, concerns about changing genetic and
biological properties of these stem cell lines necessitate continued monitoring
as well as the development of new stem cell lines in the future.
·
Proposals
to work on human embryonic stem cells. . . should be strictly scrutinized for
compliance with existing and future federally-mandated ethical guidelines.
This last recommendation would be guided by “a national advisory group
composed of exceptional researchers, ethicists, and other stakeholders
established at NIH to oversee research on human embryonic stem cells.” This committee would be separate from the
President’s Council on Bioethics, which was created as part of President Bush’s
August 9 address on federal stem cell funding.
Bert Vogelstein, Professor of Oncology and
Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, served as the committee’s chair. Copies of the report are available from the
National Academy Press: 202/334-3313 or
800/626-6242.
NIH solicits HIV PREVENTION
RESEARCH
In
recognition of the influence of the social environment on individual risk
behaviors, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH), and the National Institute for Nursing Research (NINR)
are seeking applications proposing studies of school-based and other
community-centered prevention programs for adolescents and youth and minority
communities.
The
HIV/STD Prevention Programs for Adolescents RFA (request for applications)
(MH-02-007) is designed to:
· Identify the community,
school-system, and parental attitudes and concerns associated with establishing
collaborative relationships necessary to plan and implement school-based and
other community-centered intervention programs.
· Identify in-school factors
such as teacher characteristics, peer influences, or the needs of special
populations that are key to delivering developmentally appropriate and
effective intervention programs.
·
Develop,
implement, and evaluate school-based and other community-centered HIV/Sexually
Transmitted Disease preventive interventions.
A
letter of intent is due by November 14, 2001 and the application is due
by December 14, 2001. For more
information on this and the following RFA, contact: Nicolette Borek (NIMH) 301/443-4526 or nborek@mail.nih.gov;
Hilary Sigmon (NINR) 301/594-5970 or hilary_sigmon@nih.gov;
or Susan Newcomer (NICHD) 301/435-6981 or snewcomer@nih.gov.
Similarly,
the Institutional Pathways Towards Strengthening HIV Prevention In Minority
Communities RFA (HD-01-017) is devised to address the recognition that “the
design of prevention strategies that effectively harness environmental
influences has lagged behind” realization of the influence of the social
environment on individual risk behaviors.
The RFA seeks to:
· Expand the understanding of
a major feature of community environment – local community institutions
(churches, voluntary organizations, workplaces, and commercial establishments)
– and explore the roles that these institutions play in contributing to or
impeding HIV prevention.
·
Examine
the potential mechanisms through which local institutions can enhance
prevention efforts, beyond providing the venue for individual-level
interventions.
The RFA
represents the first phase of a larger initiative to develop innovative
intervention approaches that effectively involve local community institutions
in HIV prevention. A letter of intent
is due December 17, 2001 and the application is due January 18, 2002.
Communication
Research
The
National Institute on Drug Abuse joins NICHD, NIMH, and NINR in issuing a
program announcement (PA) PA-01-139 seeking applications to address the
creation, dissemination, and consumption of messages designed to deter the
spread of HIV.
Until
cures and vaccines for HIV infection are a practical reality, prevention of
infection must rely upon individuals practicing protective behavior. Now into the third decade of HIV/AIDS, say
the sponsors, prevention messages designed and presented through mainstream
media have had limited success in deterring the spread of the disease in many
populations.
The PA
invites research that will improve the understanding of how communication can
best facilitate HIV prevention efforts.
Studies that examine the interrelationships among various attributes of
communication about HIV risk and prevention, and the consequences of
communication for individuals, groups, and populations are encouraged. Additionally, research that examines how
people consume, understand, retain, and use or act upon information about HIV
risk and prevention is also urged.
For
more information contact: Susan
Newcomer (NICHD) 301/435-6981 or snewcomer@nih.gov,
Hilary Sigmon (NINR) 301/594-5970 or hilary_
sigmon@nih.gov, or Willo Pequegnat (NIMH) 301/443-1187 or wpequegn@ nih.gov. All of the announcements may be viewed at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/2001/
01.09.21/index.html.
sources of research support
COSSA provides this information as a
service and encourages readers to contact the sponsoring agency for further
information. Additional application
guidelines and restrictions may apply.
National Science Foundation:
Research on Survey and Statistical Methodology
The Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (MMS)
Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences invites research
proposals that further the development of new and innovative approaches to surveys
and to the analysis of survey data.
Although proposals may address any aspect of survey methodology,
priority will be given to basic research proposals that are interdisciplinary
in nature, have broad implications for the field in general, and have the
greatest potential for creating fundamental knowledge of value to the Federal
Statistical System. Potential topics
for consideration include basic research on survey measurement issues, data
collection procedures, technological issues related to survey design, methods
for small area estimation, and statistical approaches for the analysis of
survey data.
Topics for consideration could include but: measurement issues, questionnaire design,
survey technology, analytical issues, and small-area estimation. NSF expects to fund three to seven awards,
with an approximate duration of one to three years, and an expected award range
of $60,000 to $125,000 per award per year.
Proposals are due November
30, 2001. For additional
information, contact: Research on
Survey and Statistical Methodology Program; Cheryl L. Eavey, Program Director,
Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics; Room 995; 703/292-7269; ceavey@nsf.gov.
National Institute of Justice
The National Institute of Justice has extended
deadlines for several of their open solicitations. New deadlines for solicitations listed in prior editions of Update
include:
·
Solicitation for
Research Into the Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide: Investigating the Federal Death Penalty
System (see Update, July 30, 2001).
New deadline: December 19,
2001
·
Crime Mapping
Research: Funding for Spatial Data
Analysis (see Update, July 2, 2001).
New deadline: November 19,
2001
NIJ – Research and Evaluation in Corrections
In collaboration with the Office of Justice Programs’ Corrections
Program Office (CPO), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) seeks proposals
to conduct research and evaluation in the area of corrections.
Applications are
sought for research and evaluation that focus on topics of current interest in
the area of adult correctional management.
Topics include, but are not limited to:
management of violent offenders in correctional institutions and
systems; the management and treatment of special populations; problems and
issues in the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs in
influencing offenders’ behavior or the role of treatment programs in the
operation of correctional institutions; and recent trends in the size and
composition of correctional populations and their effects on the operations and
management of correctional systems.
The solicitation will provide up to $1.5 million to
support a limited number of projects, not to exceed $750,000 each, to conduct
research and evaluation in corrections.
A nonbinding letter of intent briefly describing the proposed research
is due November 1, 2001.
Deadline for applications is January 16, 2002. For more information see www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/sl000492.txt.