Volume 20, Number 22 Celebrating 20 Years of Advocacy December 10, 2001
- Congress to Finish Up This Week; Avoid Traditional Debacles
- President's Science Adviser Meets With Social/Behavioral Groups
- Castle, Whitehurst, and the NRC Look to Improving Education Research
- NIDA's Acting Director Reveals New Research Initiatives
- NIH Honors Matilda White Riley
- Anthropologists Launch Race Initiative
- Announcements: New NSF Division Director Named; Levine to Lead AERA; Cancer Institute Director Named
- Sources of Research Support
CONGRESS
TO FINISH UP THIS WEEK; AVOIDS TRADITIONAL DEBACLES
Almost glaringly absent these days is chatter about an omnibus
spending bill, threatened Presidential vetoes, or a fiscal train wreck
(caused by the other party, of course), which have lately accompanied
Congress’ year-end activities.
On the contrary, despite a war overseas, security concerns at home,
and a divided government, Congress has nearly wrapped things up. Of
the 13 annual appropriations bills, only three have yet to leave
conference for the President’s desk:
Defense; Foreign Operations; and Labor, HHS, Education.
Most of the major obstacles to passage of these bills are now
cleared. Conferees for Labor,
HHS, Education had been awaiting completion of the education overhaul
legislation (see Update, June 18, 2001); despite a continued
dispute over special education funding, conferees could ratify the measure
this week, clearing the way for the appropriations bill.
The defense appropriations bill is on the way to conference, now
that Senate Democrats have dropped their attempts to add funds for
domestic security and aid to New York.
Of course, fiscal year 2001 ended on September 30, so the remaining
appropriations are more than two months overdue.
But lawmakers did manage to avoid resorting to an omnibus spending
package, or worse – threatening a government shutdown.
As of December 10, it looks like the spending measures will pass as
individual bills. Lawmakers
could leave town by December 14.
PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISER MEETS WITH
SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL
GROUPS
On December 10, John Marburger, recently-confirmed director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), met with
representatives of the social and behavioral science community.
Marburger, who is also the president’s science adviser, stated
that one of his goals is to increase the strength of the social/behavioral
sciences at OSTP and throughout the government. OSTP’s Assistant
Director for the Social and Behavioral Sciences and Education, James
Griffin, also attended the meeting.
As expected, much of the discussion focused on how social and
behavioral science research can help in dealing with the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks and preventing future terrorist activities.
Marburger noted that these sciences are particularly useful in
providing information to assist with the many social dislocations created
by the September 11 attacks, especially the impact on children and
families.
He also suggested that social/behavioral research could help address
international issues, by studying other cultures and why some of those
cultures lack understanding of basic American values.
One way to do this would be to provide examples of past case
studies on sociological, psychological, and cultural reactions to
disruptions and dislocations of ordinary routines.
He also advocated the revival of area studies in American higher
education and urged the community to “think big.”
Marburger also advised the community to work closely with the
National Academies of Science commission, headed by former National Cancer
Institute director Richard Klausner, which is examining how science and
technology can aid the war on terrorism.
Turning to education, the director discussed the importance of
education to the administration’s agenda, indicating that
workforce/education issues were the important “driver” for the
social/behavioral sciences for the Bush administration.
He expressed concern, however, over the capacity of the testing
industry to handle the assessment requirements embedded in the education
legislation about to emerge from Congress.
Finally, responding to a question, Marburger noted that he hoped to
increase the representation of social/behavioral scientists on the
National Science Board and other government scientific advisory
commissions.
Other topics of discussion included human subjects protection and health and behavior research.
CASTLE, WHITEHURST, AND THE NRC LOOK TO
IMPROVING EDUCATION RESEARCH
With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
reauthorization on the verge of completion, the education research
community is looking to next year. The
reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
is overdue, and Congress will likely take this up next year.
With this in mind, the improvement of education research was
discussed at the November 30 meeting of the National Educational Research
Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB).
The meeting featured both Assistant Secretary Russ Whitehurst and
House Education Reform Subcommittee Chair Michael Castle (R-DE) sharing
their goals and recommendations for OERI reauthorization, as well as an
overview of the findings of the National Research Council’s (NRC)
Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research.
The
Chairman’s View
Castle, who sponsored a bill (H.R. 4875) to reauthorize OERI in the
last session of Congress, told the Board what he would like to see in next
year’s legislation.
Authorizers must decide on the position of OERI (or whatever
succeeds it) in the federal government.
Last year’s bill originally called for making OERI an independent
agency and moving it outside the Department of Education.
Castle now envisions a “National Academy” that would remain in
the Department, but have autonomy and “insulat[ion] from partisan
influence.” He offered the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Congressional Research Service
as models to emulate.
Castle also discussed a range of other issues that might be
addressed in future legislation. He
advocated opening up research contracts to a wider group; continuing to
coordinate with other agencies (like NSF and NIH) on interagency
initiatives; ensuring that program evaluations are impartial; and paying
closer attention to funding issues.
On the last matter of funding, most researchers and many policymakers contend that OERI’s research funding (of about $120 million in fiscal year 2001) is woefully inadequate, especially when compared to the research investments of other federal agencies. Castle, however, said he doesn’t know whether the current funding is inadequate, and would want to see how any increase in funds would be spent.
Whitehurst
Pushes Field-Initiated Studies
Assistant Secretary for Research and Evaluation Russ Whitehurst
also discussed his priorities, some of which he reiterated from previous
talks (see Update, October 22, 2001).
Of particular interest to education researchers, Whitehurst
suggested the office might evaluate the current balance between
field-initiated research (20 percent) and research conducted at the
Centers (80 percent), commenting that the field-initiated component might
deserve a boost. This, he
said, would help to attract and retain research expertise.
NRC
Releases Recommendations
NERPPB asked the National Research Council (NRC) to create a
committee to consider the scientific underpinnings of research in
education (see Update, March 23, 2001).
Comprised of a broad group of researchers and practitioners, the
committee began meeting in the fall of 2000.
The request was prompted, in part, by skepticism and debate about
the quality and applicability of education research.
The goals of the 15-month project were to inform reauthorization of
OERI and the ongoing push for “evidence-based policy and practice” and
“scientifically-based education research,” and spark self-reflection
in the education research field.
The committee’s charge, according to study director Lisa Towne,
was not to comprehensively evaluate existing research, researchers, or
OERI itself, but to consider the scientific nature of education research
more broadly, and how a federal agency could best support high-quality
science.
Their “consensus report” was released on November 29.
It discusses the nature of scientific research and the application
of scientific principles to education.
Of more direct applicability to OERI reauthorization, however, the
report outlines the committee’s consensus on design principles for
fostering science in a federal education research agency.
Six design principles resulted:
1. Staff the agency with
people skilled in science, leadership, and management.
2. Create structures to
guide the research agenda, inform funding decisions, and monitor work.
3. Insulate the agency from
inappropriate political interference.
4. Develop a focused and
balanced portfolio of research that addresses short-, medium-, and
long-term issues of importance to policy and practice.
5. Adequately fund the
agency.
6. Invest in research
infrastructure.
The details of these recommendations and the full report are available at http://books.nap.edu/ books/0309082919/html/index.html.
NIDA’S ACTING DIRECTOR REVEALS NEW
RESEARCH INITIATIVES
On November 30, Acting
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Ruth Kirschstein named Glen
R. Hanson the Acting Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
Three days later, Hanson addressed the representatives of more than
50 organizations
at the Institute’s Seventh Constituent Conference, Blending Research
and Practice. The
conference brings together representatives from a variety of disciplines
and affiliations to help establish the Institute’s research agenda.
Hanson replaces Alan I. Leshner, NIDA’s director since 1994, who
left to become the Chief Executive Officer of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (see Update,
November 5, 2001).
Known for his work on the neurotoxic properties of ecstasy (MDMA)
and amphetamines, Hanson only recently joined NIDA in September 2000 as
the Director of its Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research. A professor in the University of Utah’s Department of
Pharmacology and Toxicology, he holds a D.D.S. from the University of
California, Los Angeles, and a Ph.D. from the University of Utah.
According to Hanson, the translation of
research into practice is a critical issue for the Institute. It is not enough for scientists to do the research, he
explained. It is crucial that
they also assist in the movement of information to make a difference in
the lives of individuals.
Hanson says that it is his mission to help people understand what
drug abuse is about, and that addiction is a progressive type of illness. Acknowledging that tremendous strides have been made in
disabusing the perception that drug abuse is only about the justice
system, he underscored that additional efforts are nevertheless needed in
this area.
New
Initiatives in Drug Abuse Research
Hanson revealed that he intends to place a lot of emphasis on
adolescents. The Institute
will use a three-pronged strategy that includes transdisciplinary
prevention research centers, multi-site prevention effectiveness trials
(exploring whether strategies can be expanded into new areas), and basic
science to identify new strategies.
New initiatives and other areas of concern were highlighted at the
meeting. These include: responding to club drugs; understanding prescription drug
abuse, misuse, and addiction; focusing on steroids; launching the NIDA
National Prevention Research Initiative (NPRI); improving drug abuse
treatment in the criminal justice system; launching a new inhalant
initiative; and HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and drug abuse research in minority
and diverse communities.
According to Hanson, a central element of the NPRI is the National
Drug Abuse Prevention Research System (NPRS).
The system will include two interrelated components.
The first is a series of multi-site trials that will involve
research partnerships between scientists and prevention practitioners at
the state and community levels. The
second is a set of Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Centers (TPRCs),
which will foster collaborations among basic, clinical, and applied
researchers to study major knowledge gaps relevant to drug abuse
prevention, and conduct translational research leading to new prevention
interventions based on that research.
In 2001, NIDA launched the Corrections Research Initiative.
The goals of the initiative include coordinating research efforts
currently underway within NIDA and disseminating corrections-related
research findings.
Recognizing that inhalant abuse remains a problem worldwide, and
particularly in America, Hanson observed that there is a limited amount of
research in this area. To
address this gap, the Institute expects to intensify its research efforts
to characterize the behavioral effects of inhalants (e.g., subjective,
psychomotor, and reinforcing), develop more effective prevention
interventions, and determine which treatments can be used.
The Institute emphasizes that basic epidemiological, behavioral,
cognitive, and neurobiological research is needed to determine the
antecedent variables (e.g., impaired decision making processes,
impulsivity), consequences (e.g., accidents, dropping out of school,
neurological and physiological disorders, cognitive deficits, and
impairments resulting from prenatal exposure), and the underlying
mechanisms associated with or resulting from inhalant exposure.
Hanson wrapped-up the meeting with the tragic addiction stories of
three individuals. He
implored the representatives assembled “not to miss the trees
(individuals) for the forest.” He
noted the tremendous impact of addiction “on us personally” and on
society. We cannot let it continue to hurt victims, families,
communities, and society, Hanson concluded.
NIDA’s
Report Card
Each year, NIDA prepares and distributes the NIDA Report Card at
the conference. The report
describes how the Institute responded to the recommendations made by
constituents at the previous conference.
A copy of this year’s report card can be found on NIDA’s web
site (www.nida.nih.gov).
NIH
HONORS MATILDA WHITE RILEY
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and
Social Sciences Research honored the many contributions of Matilda White
Riley to the social and behavioral sciences at NIH.
The lecture series, Soaring: an Exploration of Science and the
Life Course, celebrated her achievements in the area of health and
behavior.
The title of the lecture series reflects Riley’s early interest
in the sport of soaring and gliding and is considered to be a metaphor for
her professional and private life. The
lecture topics reflect the areas of Riley’s contributions:
mass communications, health and behavior, life course perspective,
age and aging, and fertility behaviors.
Riley served as the founding Associate Director for Behavioral and
Social Research (BSR) from 1979 to 1991, Senior Social Scientist from 1991
to1997, and Scientist Emeritus since 1998 at the National Institute on
Aging (NIA). Under her
guidance, the BSR’s multidisciplinary program grew to become one of the
largest funders of behavioral and social science research at the NIH. The program emphasizes the interplay between social,
behavioral, and biological factors in the aging of individuals and
societies.
She is lauded for her leadership in guiding NIA’s extramural
program in the social and behavioral sciences and across the NIH in her
role as chairperson of landmark committees on health and behavior.
These include ADAMHA (the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration) and the Steering Committee for the Institute of
Medicine’s Project on Health and Behavior.
In these capacities she encouraged cooperation among the NIH
Institutes, oversaw the production of numerous reports to Congress on
behavioral research at NIH, provided advice to several NIH directors, and
initiated the behavioral and social science seminar series at the NIH.
The lecture series was organized to reflect the main substantive
areas in which Riley made significant contributions over her career. It is cosponsored by the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD), the National Cancer Institute (NCI),
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and NIA.
Riley, who was unable to attend the inaugural lecture due to a last
minute cancellation of her flight, was presented a plaque, via video, in
gratitude and appreciation from professional societies including COSSA,
the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological
Association, the American Psychological Society, the Center for the
Advancement of Health, the Gerontological Society of America, and the
Society for Behavioral Medicine.
The lectures include:
·
Biocultural Dynamics of the Life Course: A Difficult Journey from the
Third to the Fourth Age? by Paul B. Baltes, Director of the Center of Lifespan Psychology at
the Max Planck Institute for Human Development (Berlin, Germany), on
October 22.
·
Teenage Childbearing Across the Generations: Reality or Myth,
by Frank F. Furstenburg, University of Pennsylvania, on October 26.
·
Health Campaigns in the Age of Ubiquitous Media: Promise and Peril,
by John R. Finnegan, University of Minnesota, on November 14.
·
Gender Difference in Heart Disease: Let Me Count the Ways,
by Karen A. Matthews, University of Pittsburgh, on December 4.
·
Successful Aging: Prescriptions and Persisting Problems,
by Robert L. Kahn, University of Michigan, on January 16, 2002.
Additional information about the lecture series can be found at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/soaring.
ANTHROPOLOGISTS
LAUNCH RACE INITIATIVE
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) unveiled their new
public education initiative, Understanding Race and Human Variability,
at their annual meeting in Washington on November 28.
The four-year, multidisciplinary project received an initial boost
in the form of a $1 million grant from the Ford Foundation.
The
focus of the initiative will be on disseminating information to the public
about the interplay between race, genetics, and human variability.
In so doing, the project aims to change people’s attitudes about
race and the stereotypes that are attached to physical differences.
AAA
hopes that meeting these goals will “bolster public support for social
justice and affirmative action programs and promote equality among all
peoples,” according to an article in Anthropology News by AAA
Executive Director William E. Davis.
To
accomplish these objectives, Understanding Race and Human Variability
will develop a traveling museum exhibit, design a website, and produce a
publication on race and human variability for the general public.
The initiative will also convene a series of interdisciplinary
conferences to share knowledge, determine commonalities and differences,
and identify resources and materials to be included in the program.
Although
the Ford grant will help fund the website and exhibit for three years, the
AAA is actively seeking funding to extend and expand the project.
The
chair of the initiative’s Advisory Committee is Yolanda Moses, Executive
Director of the American Association of Higher Education.
She will be joined on the committee by the AAA members who
initiated and developed the project, representatives of collaborating
scholarly societies, other recipients of Ford Foundation grants, and
public figures with expertise on race and human variability.
AAA Director of Government Relations Peggy Overbey serves as the
project director.
New
NSF Division Director Named
Norman Bradburn, Assistant Director for the National Science
Foundation’s Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, has
announced the appointment of Ken MacCrimmon as the new director of the
Social and Economic Sciences (SES) division.
MacCrimmon replaces William Butz, who left NSF this summer.
MacCrimmon is currently director of the Peter Wall Institute for
Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia (UBC).
The institute supports basic research through interdisciplinary
initiatives to advance knowledge. Among
its projects are inquiries into culture and cognition, hearing
inaccessibility, new models of urban change in the Asia-Pacific region,
and the international ethics of security.
MacCrimmon was initially appointed full professor at UBC in 1970
following an academic career at Carnegie Mellon University that began in
1964. At Carnegie Mellon, he
taught a broad variety of courses in economics, behavioral science,
management, and statistics. From
1980 to 1982, he held the endowed chair as J.L. Kellogg Distinguished
Professor of Strategy and Decision at Northwestern University.
His research has focused on understanding how people solve problems
and make decisions. He
conducted some of the earliest research in the areas of choice with
multiple objectives, decision paradoxes, mathematical models of
organizations, and experimental economics.
MacCrimmon’s degrees are all from UCLA.
His B.Sc., received in 1959, was one of the first interdisciplinary
degrees and was composed of a program of study in engineering,
mathematics, business, and economics.
He also went on to get an MBA in 1960 and a Ph.D. in 1965, which
was also interdisciplinary, including business, economics, mathematics,
and behavioral sciences.
The SES division that MacCrimmon will lead includes programs in
Decision, Risk, and Management Science; Economics; Innovation and
Organizational Change; Law and Social Science; Methodology, Measurement,
and Statistics; Political Science; Science and Technology Studies;
Societal Dimensions of Science, Engineering and Technology; and Sociology.
Levine
to Lead AERA
Felice Levine, who has been the Executive Officer of the American
Sociological Association (ASA) since 1991, was named the new Executive
Director of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
She will replace William Russell, who is retiring after 28 years as
head of the 23,000 member organization of scholars who conduct education
research and evaluation.
Prior to leading ASA, Levine spent 12 years as head of the Law and
Social Science program at the National Science Foundation and five years
as senior research social scientist at the American Bar Association.
She has her A.B., A.M., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
Chicago in sociology and psychology.
In addition to her ASA duties, Levine is currently serving as a
member of the National Human Research Protection Advisory Committee, where
she co-chairs the working group on social and behavioral science.
She is also serving on the advisory committees for the decennial
census and the National Consortium on Violence Research and on the boards
of the National Humanities Alliance and the Consortium of Social Science
Associations (COSSA). From
1997 to 2000, Levine chaired the COSSA Executive Committee.
She has co-authored the 1996 report, Social Causes of Violence:
Crafting a Science Agenda. In addition, she currently serves as the principal
investigator for the ASA Minority Fellowship Program for Underrepresented
Minorities.
Levine will join AERA in May 2002.
Until then, Gerald Sroufe, AERA’s Director of Governmental
Relations, will serve as interim Executive Director.
Cancer
Institute Director Named
On December 6, the President announced the appointment of Andrew C.
von Eschenbach to lead the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
Von Eschenbach, a prostate cancer expert, is the director of the
Center for Genital and Urinary Cancers at the University of Texas M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center. He is
also President-elect of the American Cancer Society.
“As the Director of the National Cancer Institute, I will be
devoted to nurturing and promoting the paradigm of discovery through basic
research,” said von Eschenbach at the White House ceremony announcing
his appointment.
Von Eschenbach’s appointment comes before the naming of the new
National Institutes of Health (NIH) director.
He replaces acting NCI director Alan Rabson, who has served since
September. Rabson replaced
Richard Klausner, appointed by former President Clinton in 1995.
Klausner is now president of the Case Institute of Health, Science,
and Technology, a philanthropic enterprise (see Update,
November 5, 2001).
Of the 27 NIH Institutes and Centers, the NCI is the only one whose
director is required to be appointed by the President, as mandated in
legislation signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970.
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.
AERA/OERI
Research Grants Program
The American Educational Research Association (AERA), in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), invites researchers to apply
for one- to two-year fellowships. AERA/OERI
Research Grants award up to $25,000 for 2-year projects.
They are designed to support the research of talented scholars and
to build a community of scholars whose focus is on high-priority issues
such as the education of poor, urban, or minority students, especially in
mathematics and literacy.
Applications must include a research proposal, a budget, and a current curriculum vitae for the principal investigator(s). Applications for the third round of awards, effective May 2002, are due March 15, 2002. See www.aera.net.
Home
About
COSSA