·
Labor-HHS
Subcommittee Approves Spending Bill
·
Merits
of Scientific Earmarking Debated
·
Panel
Passes Bill to Create EPA Science Coordinator
·
Reports
Assess Census 2000, Look to 2010
·
Justice
Statistics Releases Hate Crimes Report
·
Report
Encourages Cooperation Between Secular and Faith Communities to Reduce Teen
Pregnancy
·
Sources
of Research Support
labor-hhs
subcommittee approves spending bill
On October 3, the House Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education Subcommittee (Labor-HHS) approved a bill containing
significant increases for programs and agencies in the health and education
departments for fiscal year 2002.
“The bill is balanced and bipartisan, providing
sufficient funding to address the President’s education reform priorities,
while meeting the many pressing needs of the health of all Americans,” said
Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Regula (R-OH).
Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Senior Democrat on the House Appropriations
Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee, also expressed his
satisfaction with the bipartisan agreement.
“This bill makes sure that we continue to increase our commitment to
education and health care, while preserving our most important worker
protection programs,” Obey said.
The bill increases the National Institutes of
Health’s (NIH) budget by $2.5 billion to more than $23 billion in FY 2002,
the same as the President’s request but less than the $3.4 billion increase
sought by NIH advocates.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
received the President’s request of $306.2 million, a $35.2 million increase
above FY 2001. The Subcommittee
provides $4.1 billion in funding to the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), a $200 million increase over FY 2001 and $393 million more than the
President requested.
In response
to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Subcommittee provides $393 million,
a $100 million increase, for biological and chemical warfare research at the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), NIH, and the Office of Emergency
Preparedness.
The bill would increase education spending by $7
billion over FY 2001 to $49.3 billion.
The Office of Educational Research and Improvement would receive
$147.6 million for research, a $27 million or 22 percent increase over FY
2001. Regional educational laboratories
would receive $70 million, $5 million more than last year. The National Center for Education
Statistics would also receive $5 million more for a total of $85 million.
The bill provided International Education and
Foreign Language Studies with $93 million, $15 million more than FY
2001. Domestic programs increased from
$67 to $80 million; Fulbright-Hays went from $10 million to $11.5 million; and
the Institute for International Public Policy increased from $1.0 million to
$1.5 million.
The
bill also begins the President’s Faith-Based Initiative, including providing
the Compassion Capital Fund with $30 million and increasing the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program by $70 million.
For the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the bill
allocates $477.1 million, an increase of 5.8 percent.
The
House Appropriations Committee plans to mark up the bill on October 9. The Senate’s com-mittee plans to mark up its
version the same week.
merits
of Scientific Earmarking debated
A group of
associations convened a workshop on the Congressional earmarking of scientific
research on October 3 at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The format featured remarks by the event’s
moderator, University of Virginia President John T. Casteen, and two
experts. The sponsors included the
National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC).
The
first panel discussed definitions and contexts of earmarking. Sarah Horrigan of the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) explained that her agency defines scientific
earmarking as research performed at Congressional discretion. Ron Southwick of the Chronicle of Higher
Education commented that total earmarked funds have ballooned in the last two
fiscal years and that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had to cut
all standing grants to researchers by five percent in Fiscal Year 1999 to pay
for earmarks.
Jeff
Brainard, also with the Chronicle, added that members of Congress often specify
earmarks in conference reports, but he noted that these are not law. Daniel Pearson of the House Science Committee
Democratic staff picked up on this last point by saying that if President Bush
is really serious about reducing earmarking, as some recent articles have
suggested he is, he should issue an executive order forcing agency heads to
award only those earmarks written into law.
Kei Kozumi of the AAAS remarked that his organization agrees with the
OMB’s definition of earmarking, but that its definition also includes funds
specified for research facility construction at institutions.
Offering
some historical background, Casteen explained that academic earmarks first
started appearing in Congressional appropriations in 1980. He then went on lay out some of the basic
arguments in favor: they can better
reach institutions that have traditionally been neglected by the peer review
system, and most major research universities seek them out anyway. Arguments against these earmarks, said
Casteen, include: they undercut peer
review, the funds are often wasted, and they create hypocrisy in academic
research – it amounts to “the earmarking of science.” He noted that the AAU has twice called on its member institutions
to refrain from seeking earmarks, and that every U.S. president since Jimmy
Carter has opposed earmarks.
In
the ensuing discussion, freelance writer Dan Greenberg asked the panel to
comment on the assertion that peer review processes are risk adverse and may
not finance cutting-edge research (thus necessitating earmarking). Horrigan countered that agency directors and
program managers are allocated discretionary funds for this type of research;
she also noted that there has been some consideration given to the idea of
setting aside some funds for proposals receiving high standard deviations in
their peer review scores. She contented
that such marks generally indicate that the proposal is controversial,
cutting-edge research.
The
second panel was tasked with discussing interpretations and policy implications
of earmarks. Former U.S. Senator J.
Bennett Johnston (D-LA) dominated the session by stressing that earmarks are
going to continue no matter how much effort is made to eradicate them. He further asserted that earmarked funds are
not likely to go towards peer reviewed research even if they are removed from
appropriations.
The
workshop made it clear that the jury on scientific earmarking is still out, and
no resolution to the debate seems imminent.
PANEL PASSES BILL TO CREATE EPA
SCIENCE COORDINATOR
The House Science Committee, chaired by
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), passed H.R. 64, a bill to create a Deputy
Administrator for Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) introduced the
legislation based on a June, 2000 report by the National Research Council, Strengthening
Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and Peer Review Practices, recommending
new positions at EPA to enhance the role of science in Agency decision-making.
The new Deputy Administrator would be
responsible for coordinating the scientific effort among EPA’s numerous offices
and, according to the Committee, “ensuring that sound science is the basis for
regulatory decisions.”
The legislation also set a fixed
five-year term for the EPA Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research
and Development (ORD). This would
provide more continuity across administrations, enabling the individual to
better focus on the science conducted at the Agency. The ORD Administrator would also be designated EPA’s “Chief
Scientist.”
The ORD supports competitive research by
university-based investigators through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. It also provides almost $10
million for fellowships.
The bill also expresses Congress’ desire
that the EPA maintain a balance between “core research” and “problem-driven
research.” EPA is also strongly
encouraged to improve its scientific research dissemination efforts including,
at the urging of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), improved efforts at reaching historically black colleges and
universities, Hispanic-serving universities, minority communities, and rural
communities.
The legislation now moves to the House
floor.
reports assess census 2000,
look to 2010
With the expiration of the
Census Monitoring Board’s legal mandate on September 30 (see Update,
September 24, 2001), the Board released two final reports to Congress
characterizing the process of Census 2000 and outlining recommendations for the
2010 census. Not surprisingly, the
reports differ significantly.
The first, released on
September 1, was produced by the four Congressional Members, who were appointed
by Republican congressional leaders when the Board was created by Congress in
1997 to oversee planning for and implementation of Census 2000. The second report was released on September
26 by the four Presidential Members, who were appointed by President
Clinton.
“An
Unexpected Success”
The Congressional Members’
report stressed the success of Census 2000, proclaiming “We have witnessed one
of the most remarkable achievements in the American experience: the most accurate census in our
history.” The report stressed the
improvements in reducing the country’s net undercount (to 1.18 percent) and the
black-white differential undercount.
The members acknowledge that the results were not perfect, but stress
that research by the Board and by the Census Bureau “indicate that it was a
clear success.”
The report also points to
several factors that the members believe contributed to its success. These include: giving Regional Offices the flexibility and resources to meet the
needs of local communities; partnering with other organizations to promote the
Census; working with local governments to improve address lists; paying for an
advertising campaign; paying census workers competitive rates; and fully
funding Census 2000.
Acknowledging the problem
of a differential undercount (the difference in undercount rates between
races), the report goes on to assert that “statistical adjustment will never
completely eliminate the differential undercount or the overall net
undercount.”
Instead, the congressional
members recommend that the Bureau “make an effort to reach every person and to
create every opportunity for people to participate in the census.”
The Congressional Members’
full report is available at www.cmbc.gov/Reports/Report_FINAL.
pdf.
“Plagued
by the Undercount”
In contrast to the
Congressional Members’ analysis, the Presidential Members’ report was more
reserved in its evaluation of success, using the phrase, “To the degree that
Census 2000 was a success . . .”
The source of their
discontent lies with the differential undercount and their belief that
adjustment could have resulted in a more accurate census. “Even after the Census Bureau’s operational
successes . . . the differential undercount, while reduced, remains,” asserted
Gilbert Casellas, Presidential Co-Chair.
Casellas lamented that the
undercount hampers Congress in directing federal funds to where they are needed,
and that statistically adjusted numbers “would have made a major difference in
people’s lives.”
While the use of
statistical adjustment for the purpose of redistricting has already been
rejected, the use of adjustment for other purposes, such as distributing
billions of dollars in federal grants, is not yet settled. The Bureau is currently evaluating the
accuracy of Census 2000 and has set a deadline of October 15 to recommend for
or against adjustment. The public
release of adjusted data is on hold pending that decision.
The report outlined
18 recommendations to improve the 2010 census, which include: remove partisan politics from the process;
set a fixed term for the Census Director (who currently serves at the pleasure
of the President); continue Congressional funding for a post-enumeration
survey; adequately fund the 2010 Census; require the Census Bureau to develop
greater capacity to measure immigration; use gross error rather than net error
as the primary basis to determine the accuracy of the census; and ensure the
census complies with its pre-determined data products release schedule.
The Presidential Members’
full report is available at www.cmbp.gov/reports/final_report/
FinalReport.pdf.
Justice Statistics Releases
Hate Crimes Report
The
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) unveiled a study on September 23 compiling
hate crimes committed between 1997 and 1999.
The report’s release comes as hate crimes receive a new wave of
attention in the wake of last month’s terrorist strikes. Recently, President Bush and other leaders
have called on the American public to shun crimes that some have committed
against individuals of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent since the
attack.
The
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 mandated the collection of hate crimes
information, and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program has been collecting
data ever since. As time passes, more
and more law enforcement agencies are reporting incident-level hate crime data
to the FBI, which has created the National Incident Based Reporting System
(NIBRS). Hate crimes are defined by the
FBI as criminal offenses motivated by an offender’s bias against a race,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
The
study breaks down nearly 3,000 reported hate crimes from 17 states into
categories such as bias motivation, victim and offender characteristics, and
type of offense committed. It found
that the majority of these hate crimes were motivated by race (61.2 percent of
the total); smaller percentages were driven by religion (14.4 percent), sexual
orientation (12.7 percent), ethnicity (11.1 percent), and disability (0.6
percent). Turning to the targets of
hate crimes, blacks were the victims of a majority of the racially motivated
crimes; crimes against Jews, male homosexuals, Hispanics, and physically
disabled individuals led the tallies in the other categories.
The
report found that more than half of the victims of violent crimes were under
the age of 25. Offenders also tended to
fit into younger age groups: 31 percent
of violent hate crimes and 46 percent of property offenses studied can be
attributed to individuals under the age of 18.
The report also lists statistics for the relationship between the victim
and the offender. Among victims of
violent hate crimes, 38 percent listed their attackers as acquaintances, 26
percent as strangers, and 7 percent as intimates, relatives, or friends. The relationship was unknown or unreported
in the other 29 percent of cases.
The
17 states reporting to the NIBRS in 1999 were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Copies of the report are available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
abstract/hcrn99.htm.
report encourages COOPERATION
between SECULAR AND FAITH COMMUNITIES to reduce TEEN PREGNANCY
Over the years, numerous studies have reported
associations between adolescents’ sexual altitudes and behaviors and their
religious affiliations, practices, and beliefs. More recently, religious institutions have increasingly been
called upon by policy makers and the public to address social problems – with
or without government funding.
Given this trend, the authors of the recently
released report, Keeping the Faith: The Role of Religion and Faith in
Communities in Preventing Teen Pregnancy, were “struck by the nascent state
of research on religion and adolescent sexual behavior, despite the fact that
researchers have been [studying] the topic for at least four decades.” The report was produced by the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life.
The report finds that morals, values, and/or
religious beliefs affect teens’ decisions whether or not to have sex more than
concern about sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), fear of pregnancy, or other
reasons.
While the report shows that religious teens tend to
hold more conservative views regarding sex and are more likely to delay having
sex, it also suggests that some religious teens may be less likely to use
contraception if they become sexually active.
Other findings include:
·
Approximately
90 percent of teens report affiliation with a particular religious
denomination.
·
Regardless
of gender or race, teens who attend religious services frequently are less
likely to have permissive attitudes about sex.
·
Girls
with no religious affiliation have higher rates of sexual activity and lower
rates of condom use.
Because of the limited research, the report does not examine the
effectiveness of faith-based programs to prevent teen pregnancy.
Reason for
Hope:
A Review
of the Research
Keeping the Faith also examines the research and what it
reveals about the role religion plays in teen decisions about sex, and “makes
the argument for increased cooperation and understanding among secular and
faith communities.”
A section authored by former COSSA Board Member
Brian Wilcox, with Sharon Scales Rostosky and colleagues, provides a
comprehensive research review of the role of religiosity in teen sexual
behavior, considering approximately 50 studies published between 1980 and
2000. Some of the theoretical and
methodological issues raised by research are summarized in the report.
The authors qualify that the report does not address
a number of issues, including:
·
Studies
examining the effectiveness of faith-based adolescent pregnancy prevention
programs
·
Research
summarizing evaluations of teen pregnancy prevention programs
·
Studies
examining effects associated with attending religious schools; and
·
Aspects
of religious experience – grace and miracles – that are not amenable to
empirical scrutiny.
Future
Directions of Research
The authors observe that the research designs used
in the studies are “almost exclusively cross-sectional in nature,” which
hindered their ability to assess the likely directionality of influence.
They stressed that assessing the causal ordering of
variables such as religiosity and sexual behavior will require that future
studies collect data at multiple points in time. Longitudinal studies, they assert, are essential to capture the
changes (patterns of religious practices and beliefs, sexual attitudes, and
behaviors) and assess the direction of causality.
The authors also expressed their “surprise by the
largely atheoretical nature of the research in this field. Most studies treated the religion measures
as control variables, and, as such they were not the focus of the studies.”
They also point out that few studies explored the
core questions regarding what it is about adolescents’ religious experience
that might influence their sexual behaviors.
Similarly, the studies reviewed ignored the possible role of religiosity
within an adolescent’s peer group.
None of the studies examined adolescents’ specific religious beliefs and
perceptions regarding the appropriateness and potential consequences of various
sexual behaviors.
The report calls for research that:
·
Examines
the role that race and ethnicity may play in the religiosity/sexual behavior
relationship.
·
Addresses
the question of how religiously-involved youth differ from those who are not
involved or what role those differences – personal, social, or contextual –
might play in accounting for any relationship between religiosity and sexual
behavior.
·
Approaches
the question of relationship between adolescent religiosity and sexual behavior
from a developmental viewpoint.
·
Addresses
the “complex interrelationships that exist between adolescents, their families,
their peers, and the social contexts, both micro and macro, in which they
live.”
The authors concede that such studies are extremely
complex and call for large-scale longitudinal studies that are expensive and
difficult to manage. For more
information, contact the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy at
202/478-8510.
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.
Health and Human Services:
Short-Term Courses in Research Ethics
Despite
research that has led to important advances in health care and life expectancy,
and an improvement in the quality of life, there have been some highly visible
cases of serious lapses in the ethical conduct of research involving human
participants. To provide a key learning
opportunity for researchers to obtain and develop their understanding of
ethical issues that pertain to research, the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for
HealthCare and Research Quality (AHRQ) are seeking grant applications to
develop, conduct, evaluate, and disseminate short-term courses on ethical
issues in research.
The
long term objective is to increase the number of researchers who have both
awareness and skills in the ethical aspects of research involving humans.
Topics
that can benefit from this short course approach include:
·
Practical problems
arising in the design and conduct of research.
·
Issues in handling the
needs of specific populations participating in research.
·
International issues in
research ethics.
·
Theoretical approaches
to understanding ethical, legal, and social issues.
·
Issues arising in the
context of institutional review board (IRB) review.
Application
receipt dates: March 12, 2002;
March 12, 2003 and March 12, 2004.
Inquiries are encouraged.
Contact Lawrence Friedman, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
301/496-9899 or lawrence_friedman@nih.gov or see http://grants.
nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-01-143.html for more information.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism:
Alcohol-Related
Problems Among College Students:
Epidemiology and Prevention
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism seeks research proposals on alcohol use by college students
(RFA-AA-02-001). Studies should focus
on the epidemiology and natural history of college drinking and related
problems and on designing and/or testing interventions to prevent or reduce
alcohol-related problems among college students.
Topics include, but are not limited to: patterns of alcohol consumption and the
distribution of alcohol-related problems in the collegiate population as a
whole and in specific subpopulations of students; risk and protective factors
(including ethnic, cultural, family, genetic, and environmental influences);
differences between racial/ethnic groups in college with respect to alcohol
consumption and alcohol-related problems; special populations particular to
campus life; the influence of school characteristics (e.g., size, location,
religious affiliation if any) in attracting students to varying drinking
proclivities and habits and in affecting the drinking behavior of students on campus;
understanding the impact of alcohol consumption on high risk sexual behavior,
sexual assault and other types of aggression among college students.
A letter of intent is due by January 18, 2002. Applications are due by February 19,
2002. For additional information
regarding epidemiology and natural history contact Vivian B. Faden,
301/594-6232 or vfaden@willco.niaaa.nih.gov;
for prevention and intervention contact Gayle Boyd, 301/443-8766 or gboyd@willco.niaaa.nih.gov.
National Cancer Institute:
Exploratory
Grants for Behavioral Research in Cancer Control
The Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division
of Cancer Prevention of the National Cancer Institute invite research proposals
to conduct developmental and formative behavioral research in cancer prevention
and control (PA-02-001).
Priority areas include, but are not limited to:
enhancing risk communication, comprehension, and informed decision making under
uncertainty; integrating preventive and early detection services into changing
health delivery systems; enhancing survivorship of cancer patients; promoting a
healthy diet and physical activity; prevention, treatment, and control of
tobacco use among children, teenagers, and adults; improving the outcomes of
genetic testing for cancer susceptibility; prevention of cancer (adherence);
consideration of ethnicity, social class, and culture; methods and
measurements; and research settings.
For additional information contact Sabra F. Woolley,
Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, at 301/435-4589 or sw215x@nih.gov; or Claudette Varricchio, Division of Cancer
Prevention, at 301/496-8641 or cv9h@nih.gov.
National Institute of Mental Health:
Research
on Quality of Care for
Mental
Disorders
The National Institute of Mental Health seeks grant proposals for
multidisciplinary research, especially mixed-methods, that will characterize,
examine, and assess the quality of mental health services provided to people
with mental disorders (PA-01-145).
Research questions include, but are not limited to: Is patient or client satisfaction related to
quality, as defined by treatment guidelines or standards of care, or to client
outcomes? How do typically measured
aspects of quality relate to client or parent satisfaction, clinician
motivation and involvement, and clinical and functional outcomes for
clients? Do personality and cultural
differences between clients and clinicians affect the client’s expectations
from treatment, perception of quality, and his or her clinical and functional
outcomes?
For more information contact Karen Anderson Oliver
at 301/443-3364 or koliver1@mail.nih.gov.
All of the announcements may be viewed at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/2001/01.10.05/index.html.