He also intends
to focus on the health of the
nation=s research enterprise, most particularly
by taking “a serious look at the balance within the federal research
portfolio.” Although the
National Institutes of Health is not formally within the jurisdiction of
the Science Committee, Boehlert raised a number of questions about NIH’s
capacity to cope with its ever-expanding
budget. He also expressed the
need to ask tough questions about proposals to double the entire science
budget. As he has for many years,
Boehlert also stated his concern about the changing nature of the
nation=s universities, such as their increasing
partnerships with industry and the relationship between research and
teaching.
The Committee
announced its Subcommittee lineup on February
7. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) will
remain as head of the Research Subcommittee (formerly Basic Research), which
has jurisdiction over NSF. Rep.
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) will also remain as the Ranking Democrat.
Rep. Dana
Rohrbacher will continue to lead the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee,
which has jurisdiction over NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN)
will be the Ranking Democrat. Rep.
Vern Ehlers (D-MI), a physicist, will head a new Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards, which will have jurisdiction over EPA, NOAA, and
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. Rep. James Barcia
(D-MI) will be the Ranking Democrat.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), a Ph.D. engineer, will head the panel
on Energy, where Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) will lead the
Democrats.
Finally, David
Goldston, who has spoken to the COSSA Annual Meeting on multiple occasions,
was named Staff Director for the Science
Committee.
Demographers Called Before Senate to Guide
Fiscal Policy
The Senate Budget Committee called four leading
demographers and economists to the Hill to testify on the impact of demographic
trends on the budget and long-term fiscal
policy. The knowledgeable
researchers brought social science and a long-term perspective to the debate
on tax cuts and the solvency of entitlement
programs.
The Committee is in need of demographic and economic
expertise in light of two factors:
the expected large budget surpluses for the next several years and
the near-certain trend towards the draining of entitlement funds as baby
boomers retire and life expectancy
rises. Although the scientists
had different prescriptions for how to deal with these trends, they all agreed
that the aging of the U.S. population is a problem that must be addressed
now.
Ronald Lee, Professor of Demography and Economics at
the University of California at Berkeley, explained that federal expenditures
on the elderly, which are now eight percent of GDP, will nearly triple to
23 percent of GDP by 2075.
Speculating on the potential for increased immig-ration to solve the
problem, Lee explained that while the average immigrant has a beneficial
impact on the Federal budget, the additional 5 million immigrants per year
over 75 years that would be required to bring Social Security into balance
is not feasible.
Lee then considered the prospect of faster economic
growth saving the day. He expects,
however, that the rise in wages that would accompany economic growth would
raise the costs of health care and other
programs. Lee summed up the
situation as a serious but manageable problem, and stressed that the earlier
long-term deficits are addressed, the lighter the burden will be for future
generations.
Robert Friedland, Director of the Center on an Aging
Society at Georgetown University, stressed the significance of economic growth
for federal expenditures on social security and
Medicare. While he conceded
that the rates of future economic growth projected by experts would not be
adequate to solve entitlement solvency problems, he suggested public policies
that invest in “human capital” as a way to ease the difficulty
of future decisions.
Friedland recommended policies that encourage and support
lifelong learning and research in basic and applied sciences, eliminate barriers
in the flow of human and financial capital, and provide physical, financial,
and educational infrastructure to encourage economic
growth.
Ben J. Wattenberg, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise
Institute, similarly sought ways to pay more into entitlement programs in
the future. Focusing on the
worldwide decline in birthrates, Wattenberg recommended government support
of “pronatalist” policies.
Such policies, like the newly-enacted $500 per child tax credit, could
encourage young couples who are reluctant to have children to do so, thereby
boosting the size of the workforce and the payments to entitlement
programs.
In reaction, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) expressed his
skepticism at the impact of such incentives on the
birthrate. Parents are discouraged
by the rising costs of such things as education and health care, he explained
in a detailed anecdote.
Finally, Peter Orszag, President of the policy consulting
firm Sebago Associates, focused on the budget surplus, suggesting the importance
of national saving to reducing the burden of future entitlement
payouts. Since using budget
surpluses to pay down the national debt would eliminate it entirely within
ten years, further national saving would require investment in private
assets. While acknowledging
the potential dangers of government investment in private assets, Orszag
concluded that the costs of not saving are more
significant.
Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Ranking Member Kent
Conrad (D-SD) sought explicit confirmation of their respective parties’
positions. Snowe received Orszag’s endorsement of investing
public funds in the stock market and Conrad received strong affirmation from
three of the witnesses that trust fund surpluses should be
protected.
New member Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) added her
observations, expressing her appreciation of the witnesses’ attention
to family-friendly policies and seeking and receiving affirmation from Orszag
that programs like Head Start do have significant positive effects on these
long term
problems.
OBSSR Invites Comments on Draft Research
Agenda
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of
Behavioral and Social Sciences (OBSSR) is seeking comments on a draft research
agenda designed to stimulate research on the social and cultural dimensions
of health. The agenda results
from the widely noted conference,
Toward
Higher Levels of Analysis:
Progress and Promise in Research on Social and Cultural Dimensions
of Health, held June 27 - 29, 2000 on the NIH
campus (see Update, July 10 and 24,
2000). The draft agenda is available
online at
http://obssr.od.nih.gov/.
There will be a 30-day comment
period.
The first-ever trans-NIH conference, designed to highlight
social science contributions to the study of health, complemented several
ongoing initiatives at NIH, most importantly the initiative to reduce health
disparities (see Update, November 6,
2000). Nine hundred people
attended.
The first two days of the conference featured presentations
by eminent social scientists on topics ranging from the measurement of race
and ethnicity to the provision of effective mental health
treatment. Sessions covered
several major areas: basic research
on sociocultural constructs, sociocultural processes and health, interpersonal,
neighborhood, and community processes involved in the etiology of health,
sociocultural processes in prevention and treatment, health services and
service seeking, global perspectives on health, and health justice and
ethics.
On the third day, a group of 60 scholars met to develop
recommendations for a research agenda that would advance research on social
and cultural aspects of health.
Six working groups addressed directions for social and cultural research
on 1) the etiology of health and illness; 2) prevention; 3) treatment and
services; 4) consequences of illness; 5) methodology; and 6) basic constructs
and processes. The groups produced a volume of recommendations to inform
the future development of social science research on
health.
Since last June, conference co-chairs Christine Bachrach
of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and David
Takeuchi of Indiana University have been working with the planning committee,
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research staff, and other participants
in preparing the agenda for social and cultural research at
NIH.
IOM CALLS FOR NEW ERA OF RESEARCH AT
NIH
An National Research Council (NRC) Report,
New Horizons in Health: An Integrative
Approach,
calls for
a new era of research and practice
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that integrates biomedical and
social-behavioral fields of inquiry to promote the nation’s
health. Recognizing that
“there still remains significant distance to travel in the journey toward
optimal health, the central message of the report is that behavioral and
psychosocial processes have broader significance and are fundamental to a
comprehensive understanding of disease etiology as well as to the promotion
of health and well-being.
“The horizon before us is one in which
health encompasses not only the workings of biology, brain, and body but
also the human mind, its thoughts and feelings, human actions and behavior,
as well as the nature of social ties, friendships, family, and community
life,” the report emphasizes.
The Committee on Future Directions for Behavioral and
Social Sciences Research at NIH, created under the Board on Behavioral,
Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences at the National Research Council, was established
via the request of the NIH’s Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Research (OBSSR). Its purpose was to evaluate the potential contributions
of behavioral and social science research to the mission of NIH and to develop
research priorities that support and complement the work of the
institutes.
The report
identifies a broad domain of questions at the intersection of social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences, the resolution of which could lead to major improvements
in health. Emphasizing priorities that cut across Institute boundaries,
the committee underscored the broad significance of behavioral and social
science research for multiple disease outcomes as well as for health
promotion. Greater integration
of health research and practice across these broad domains, they remarked,
is essential to implement the committee’s
recommendations.
The committee
developed ten thematic priorities, with an overarching theme focused on the
multiple pathways to diverse health
outcomes. “The mechanisms
underlying racial, ethnic, and social inequalities in health . . . cannot
be fully understood without integrated pathway characterizations,” notes
the report.
Thematic
Areas
1.
Predisease pathways —
identify early and long-term biological, behavioral,
psychological, and social precursors to
disease. These include a broad array of factors that affect the
individual from conception (or before) through development and
adulthood.
2.
Positive health — identify biological, behavioral, and psychological
factors that contribute to resilience, disease resistance, and
wellness.
The committee emphasizes that positive health includes
not only the absence of illness but also the presence of
wellness.
NIH is to encouraged
to:
·
establish
new priorities focused on the etiology (at genetic, behavioral, environmental
levels) of disease resistance, particularly in contexts of known risks;
·
increase
the support for the study of the protective resources (optimism, meaning
and purpose, social and emotional support, and related neurobiological
mechanisms) that promote recovery and increased survival
rates;
·
initiate
new investigations that will advance knowledge of resilience in the face
of life adversity, giving particular emphasis to longitudinal
studies.
3.
Gene expression — understand environmentally-induced gene expression
and its connection to positive and negative health
outcomes.
The report
recommends that NIH support integrative research aimed at understanding the
role of environmentally induced gene expression in disease etiology and the
promotion of health.
4. Personal ties — explicate the mechanisms
by which proximal social interactions influence health and disease
outcomes. There is a large body of epidemiological
findings that document the links between social relationships and mental
and physical health outcomes, including
mortality.
The committee recommends that studies of the links
between the social world and health should focus on the underlying and causal
mechanisms in both animals and humans.
Such work would include:
·
investigations
that assess how social ties influence health practices and
behaviors;
·
longitudinal
studies that link cumulative social relational profiles with cumulative
biological profiles; and
·
multilevel,
integrative studies working at the intersection of social interaction, emotion,
and brain activity and downstream endocrinological and immunological
processes.
5.
Healthy communities — identify the collective properties of social
and physical environments that influence health and disease outcomes.
Research
shows that even when individual attributes and behaviors are taken into account,
there are further influences on health outcomes following from collective
community properties. Social
processes in the collective sources of influence that require investigation
include such phenomena as social cohesion, subcultures of violence, and informal
social controls.
6.
Inequality and health outcomes — clarify the mechanisms through
which socioeconomic hierarchies, racism, discrimination, and stigmatization
influence health and disease
outcomes.
The report emphasizes that programs of study are needed
on the role of socioeconomic hierarchies in predisease pathways, which encompass
behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental factors as well as underlying
biological mechanisms.
The committee also notes that disparities in health
following from ethnic/racial status and related experiences of discrimination,
racism, and stigmatization must be key priorities under the broader rubric
of social inequalities.
7.
Population health — understand macro-level trends in health status
and evaluate performance of health care
systems.
The report
cites the need for multilevel analyses that link population health dynamics
to behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental factors (at both individual
and intermediate levels of aggregation).
Four population
issues are emphasized: 1) time
trends and spatial variation in population
health;
2) accounting for such trends, with
particular emphasis given to social and behavioral factors;
3) understanding the linkages between
the macro economy and population health;
and 4) evaluating the health care
system. An important cross-cutting issue between these topics
and the preceding priorities, notes the report, is the need for multilevel
analyses that link population health dynamics to behavioral, psychosocial,
and environmental factors.
8.
Interventions — expand the scope and effectiveness of strategies
for social and behavioral interventions to improve
health.
The report notes that while
interventions have been widely implemented that have emphasized behavioral
and social factors designed to decrease behaviors associated with health
risk (e.g., alcohol or substance abuse, smoking) or to increase behaviors
associated with health promotion (e.g., exercise, dietary practices), programs
focused on family and social network interventions are less
extensive. Interventions targeted
at multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, organizational, population)
as well as to large segments of the population (not just high-risk
groups).
9. Methodology — develop new
measurement techniques and study designs to link information across levels
of analysis (molecular, cellular, behavioral, psychosocial, community) and
across time.
The
report stresses that to “advance priorities on predisease pathways and
positive health, it is critically important to conduct longitudinal studies
that measure multiple domains (e.g., behavioral, psychological, social,
environmental) across time (e.g., early life influences, childhood and
adolescence, adulthood, and old age).
10. Infrastructure
— establish ways to maintain long-term study populations and to train
scientists to integrate health-related knowledge across multiple
disciplines.
The New
Horizons report emphasizes that the multidisciplinary nature of all of
the thematic priorities in the report underscore a “critical and pervasive
need for training initiatives,” to nurture, support, and sustain hybrid
careers that transcend current disciplinary
boundaries. Success in the
integrative studies central to this report will require a new cadre of scientists
skilled in working across social, behavioral, and biomedical levels of analysis.
The executive summary to the New Horizons report can
be found on the OBSSR’s website:
http://obssr.od.nih.gov/Publications/NRC_Horizons.htm.
Children and Computer
Technology: Help
Wanted
The National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Children,
Youth, and Families convened a workshop entitled,
Children and
Computer Technology
in
Washington. The workshop brought
together researchers, educators, policymakers, and other key stakeholders
to examine a range of issues related to the role of computers in children’s
lives. Sponsored by the David
and Lucile Packard Foundation, the discussions revealed the need for social
and behavioral studies in this field.
Ellen Wartella of the University of Texas at Austin
placed the issues in a historical context, comparing today’s attention
to the impact of computers with past discussions on the potential harms of
radio, television, and other media.
However, what distinguishes computers and the internet from previous
media innovations, Wartella conceded, is the interactivity associated with
this one. We don’t know
much about the impact this new media will have on our children; we do know,
she qualified, that children tend to be early, frequent, and heavy users
of new technologies.
The research presented by the speakers addressed such
issues as the effects of computers and the internet on children’s social
well-being, cognitive skills, psychological, neural, and social development,
physical health, and academic
achievement. The common thread
running through all of the presentations was the emphasis that the widespread
use of this technology is still relatively new and that associated research
is still in its infancy.
Unfortunately, according to Joseph Turow of the University
of Pennsylvania, much of what we as a society do know about the impacts of
computers and technology we learn from popular and trade
magazines. These sources, he
said, tend to reflect the agendas of the industry and
marketers. As a result, the
content is generally not in-depth, nor is it contextualized in the scientific
literature. The public needs
information that encourages reflection and civic participation, Turow asserted,
rather than hyperconnectivity and
consumerism.
To that end, many of the presenters discussed specific
research needs that will help society to discern the effects of computers
and the internet on children and guide a more informed use of the new
technology.
Specifically, the presenters called for more research
into: how computers are being
used in formal (classroom) and informal settings; how to measure computer
literacy; appropriate classroom environments to facilitate effective use
of computer technology; how to encourage the treatment of children as active
learners rather than consumers on the internet; the implications of the
interactivity aspect of computers and the internet; how to successfully marry
the new technology to quality content, teaching, and implementation; the
impact of interactive games on cognition; the impact of internet communication
on social development; the impact of computers at home and at school on academic
performance; what computers can do that has not yet been done; what children
are and should be learning; the effects of long-term exposure to computer
screens; neurological, social, and psychological development at various ages;
and the effects of early use of software and “edutainment” on cognitive
skills, to name a few.
All this is not easy, commented Barbara Means of SRI
International. Technology, she
said, is like a moving target.
However, the research base can and should be strengthened, Means
continued, and rigor and scalability should be pursued.
Unfortunately, lamented Jeremy Roschelle of SRI
International, policy-relevant research is currently
under-funded. Linda Roberts
from the Department of Education agreed:
“It is essential that there be a policy and research agenda in
this country.” The alternative,
she said, is missed opportunities to use the technology effectively and
increasing inequities in access.
In related news, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the new chairman
of the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications Subcommittee, conveyed
in a letter to President Bush his desire to enhance funding for the Education
Department to study ways technology can boost student performance and establish
an education and technology
clearinghouse.
Using Research to Close the Achievement
Gap
“The civil rights issue of today is
education.” This was the
opening message of Benno Schmidt, founder of Edison Schools, at the Brookings
Institution’s conference on
Closing the
Gap: Promising Approaches to
Reducing the Achievement
Gap. Schmidt concluded
that there are research-based remedies for the achievement gap, and the research
is encouraging, particularly if what is known is applied
systematically.
The achievement gap refers to the disparity in academic
achievement between white and African-American and other minority
children. While there was hope that this gap would be eliminated
soon after school desegregation was ordered in 1954, there has been little
change since the 1970s when African-American and Latino students made significant
gains. If minority students
performed at the same level as whites, many believe, there would be profound
impacts on the socioeconomic status of minorities, college admissions,
segregation, prejudice, and racial
tension.
There is no consensus on the best way to improve the
quality of education minorities achieve, especially given the political nature
of policy remedies. However,
the scientists at the conference presented some solid evidence in support
of certain policies to reduce the gap.
Alan Krueger and Diane Whitmore of Princeton University
looked at evidence on class size and student
achievement. They found, consistent
with the literature, that smaller class size does improve
achievement. For some reason,
African-Americans have benefited more than other racial groups from smaller
class size over the last 30 years.
The discussants advanced a number of theories to explain
why smaller classes are beneficial as well as why they are more effective
for only one racial group. The
uncertainty about why these effects are seen points to the need for more
research; however given the observed benefits, reduced class size
“doesn’t look too bad” compared to other
strategies.
David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan of the RAND Institute
investigated the role of federal resources in closing the achievement
gap. They conclude that there is compelling evidence that federal
resources affects achievement.
They pointed to three “critical and arguably efficient federal
roles”: addressing interstate
inequality, increasing the quality of teachers and better distributing quality
teachers, and improving R&D.
In the ensuing discussion, Tom Toch of Brookings’
Brown Center on Education Policy concluded that money makes a difference,
and targeted spending can make a big
difference. This conclusion
may call into question President Bush’s proposal to give “chunks
of money [block grants] to the states to spend as they
please.”
Paul Peterson of Harvard University and William Howell
of the University of Wisconsin at Madison considered the effects of vouchers
for private schools on student
achievement. Looking at three
experiments conducted in New York, Dayton, and Washington, employing parental
surveys, student surveys, and test scores, they observed a differential impact
of voucher intervention – African-Americans benefit, but whites do not
(there is no good data for Latinos).
They mentioned three theories that try to explain why private schools
are more successful: 1) they
are in competition with public schools; 2) religious schools create community
and develop social capital; and 3) faith-based education is more
effective. As with reducing
class size, however, explanations for the racial differential in effectiveness
are still largely speculative.
COSSA STAFF GROWS
COSSA is pleased to announce the appointment of John
Wertman as Assistant Director for Government
Relations. He will assist
COSSA’s lobbying efforts, provide
research support, and manage the office.
Wertman recently spent 18 months as a White House Aide
in President Clinton’s Correspondence
Office. He previously held
internships in the White House Office of Political Affairs, the Leadership
Office of House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), and the office of
Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA).
Wertman received a B.A. in Government from the University of
Virginia.
Sources of Research Support
NSF Seeks Biocomplexity Proposals
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced
a special competition on Biocomplexity in the
Environment: Integrated Research
and Education in Environmental
Systems. Biocomp-lexity
investigations are intended to provide a more complete understanding of natural
processes, human behaviors and decisions in the natural world, and ways to
use new technology effectively to observe the environment and sustain species
diversity.
One part of the solicitation is called Dynamics of
Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH).
Proposals in this area are due March 16,
2001. CNH emphasizes quantitative
understanding of the short- and long-term dynamics of natural capital and
how humans value and influence ecosystem services and natural resources,
including consideration of landscapes and land use and the influences on
societal institutions of uncertainty, resilience, and vulnerability in complex
environmental systems. “Natural capital” refers to both tangible goods,
such as food and fuel, and less tangible services, such as water purification
and erosion control, that are provided by functioning
ecosystems.
Three integrative elements –
quantitative elements, education,
and global perspective – must be included, and interdisciplinarity is
required. NSF expects to make
110 awards: 70 for projects
and 40 for exploratory, conference, or planning
activities. For further information
go to:
www.geo.nsf.gov/be-01.htm#cnh or
contact Thomas Baerwald at 703/292-8740 or tbaerwal@nsf.gov.
