BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH GIVEN BOOST IN SENATE

On September 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education passed its version of the appropriations bill (S.2810), providing more funding for education, biomedical, and behavioral research than was provided in the House companion bill, passed in July. Led by Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), the Committee provided $28.9 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), $1.1 billion above FY 2004 funding and $373.4 million more than the level requested by the President.

In the report accompanying the bill, the Committee reiterated its recognition of “the role NIH can and does play in transforming the health status of America.” It cautioned that “the accumulation of fundamental knowledge for its own sake is of little value unless . . . it can be put to use promoting good health or diagnosing, preventing and treating disease.”

The Committee also cautioned the NIH that in a time of limited funding resources, “the peer review system will naturally tend toward conservative research proposals rather than bolder ideas that have a risk of succeeding.” NIH must be aware of this tendency, “in terms of both the research grants that it awards and the types of researchers who receive them.” According to the report, NIH must continue to fund high-risk research and young investigators who have innovative ideas.

The Committee expressed its support for reviewing the basic behavioral and social sciences research at NIH that is currently underway in a working group of the Advisory Council to the NIH Director. The group is being chaired by Linda Waite, University of Chicago, who recently spoke at the COSSA Congressional Briefing on Aging (See UPDATE, July 26, 2004).

Reflecting the concern by many in Congress over the growing obesity rates, the NIH is encouraged to expand its Trans-institute obesity research initiative to include a multi-center study of the metabolic, psychological, and genetic precursors of obesity in children. In fact, the House Government Reform Health and Wellness Subcommittee recently held a hearing on obesity, in which social scientist Tom Wadden of the University of Pennsylvania advocated for doubling the NIH obesity research funding. Wadden spoke at COSSA’s 2002 briefing on Obesity (see UPDATE, April 28, 2003). While Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) agreed that research may eventually be necessary, he was quick to speculate that it would not happen while there was a war overseas, and postulated that there must be alternatives to federally-funded research.

The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) is commended in the report for its efforts to develop new mechanisms of training scientists in more than one academic discipline. These efforts are intended to create a scientific workforce better prepared to research multi-faceted problems.

The report also points out that the legislative mandate for National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) specifically includes behavioral science research, although the Institute does not now support behavioral research or training. Given the range of behavioral topics relevant to a variety of disease and health conditions, the Committee encourages NIGMS to incorporate basic behavioral research into its portfolio, especially in the areas of cognition, behavioral neuroscience, behavioral genetics, psychophysiology, methodology and evaluation, and experimental psychology. NIGMS is further encouraged to collaborate with other institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, and OBSSR to fund research integrating physiological knowledge of pre-disease pathways and behavioral studies.

The report is replete with language for addressing the research priorities of the Institutes and Centers, including:

§ National Cancer Institute: human decision-making processes; innovative support of multidisciplinary training programs; exploration of new training opportunities with OBSSR to increase the number of scientists who can bridge the realms of behavioral and social science research and public health or biomedical research.

§ National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): significant expansion of research on aging and advancing the geriatric mental health research agenda; a continued commitment to strengthen behavioral research examining the basic psychological functions that promote mental health or become disturbed in mental disorders; inclusion of research on cognitive, personality, emotional and social processes that underlie behavioral functioning; support for research identifying protective factors against negative impacts of stress among young adults and in developing strategies to strengthen the family; expansion of research on the psychological impacts of terrorism, including research related to factors that promote detection or prediction, prevention, and post-exposure recovery and resilience; and strong support for translational research in the behavioral and social sciences to address how basic behavioral processes, such as cognition, emotion, motivation, development, and social interaction inform the diagnosis, treatment, and delivery of services for mental disorders.

§ National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI): long-term behavior change, particularly as it concerns physical activity; continued focus on the role of exercise in health, and factors that increase the likelihood that sedentary adults and youth can initiate and maintain programs of physical activity to prevent obesity.

§ National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK): expansion of research on childhood obesity, particularly behavioral research on physical activity in children in such settings as schools, after-school care, or other community venues; and the relative contributions of the environmental and behavioral facts that lead to excessive weight gain and obesity among children.

§ National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD): support for the National Children’s Study and research on the metabolic, psychological, and genetic causes of obesity in children.

§ National Institute on Aging (NIA): expansion of the research on the needs of older workers; development of cognition-enhancing interventions; and continued support for demographic and economic research.

§ National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR): support for research on Alzheimer’s patients and those who care for them; research on adolescent risk behavior; coordination of end-of-life care; support for research to reduce disparities in the health of minority populations; and self-management of chronic illnesses.

§ National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA): collaboration between NIAAA, NIMH, NIDA, and the states to develop more recent and accurate data on persons with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (emphasis on individuals with mild to moderate mental health disorders); support for research on alcohol-related problems in a developmental context; and a continued focus on the transition from childhood into adolescence itself.

§ National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): increased research to better understand the mechanisms underlying adolescent judgment, decision-making, impulsivity, and risk- taking.

§ National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): support for the establishment of a social and behavioral intramural research branch within NHGRI’s intramural program; recognition of NHGRI’s partnership with other institutes and OBSSR to study gene-environment interactions.

§ National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD): support for NCMHD’s efforts to coordinate with OBSSR and continued support for research on socioeconomic status and health, experience of racism, and effective health communication.

Education Programs Funded at Same Levels

The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $103.7 million for international education and foreign language programs, including the Title VI Centers. This is the same as both last year’s funding level and this year’s budget request. The House provided a $4 million increase for these programs. For the Jacob Javits Graduate Fellowship program, the panel appropriated $9.9 million, the same as last year, the request, and House levels. Unlike the House, the Senate gave $3 million to the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. The program did not receive funding in 2004.

The Institute of Education Science (IES) is the Department’s research, statistics, and assessment arm. The Senate panel allotted $165.5 million for research and dissemination, the same as last year and the House, but $20 million below the Administration’s request. Report language continued to support IES Director Russ Whitehurst’s emphasis on randomized control trials, as well as longitudinal studies and other research “that meets the standards set by the National Research Council.” The National Center for Education Statistics received $91.7 million, consistent with last year, the request, and the House. Like the House, the Senate once again saved the Regional Educational Laboratories from the Administration’s desire to abolish them, funding the laboratories at $66.7 million. Almost $95 million was appropriated for assessment activities, mainly the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) remains the depository for earmarking projects that Congress wants to fund. The Senate panel provided $157.7 million, the same as last year. The President’s budget request, which eliminated the Congressional earmarks, was $32 million. These congressionally - favored programs were not identified in the committee report, but they will probably show up in the final conference report.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics received its requested increase to $533.5 million from the Committee for FY 2005. The House provided the same. The FY 2004 funding was $518.5 million.

Some Increases for Agriculture Programs

The Senate Appropriations Committee allocated $75.3 million for the Economic Research Service for FY 2005. Although this is about $5 million below the request and slightly less than the House’s $76.6 million, the recommended Senate figure is $4.3 million above the FY 2004 appropriation. The National Research Initiative also got a boost from the Senate panel to $183 million, $2 million more than the House, $3 million more than the request, and almost $19 million more than last year. The National Agricultural Statistics Service received $130.3 million, a slight $2.1 million boost from FY 2004. This total includes $22.4 million for the Census of Agriculture. Unlike the House, the Senate panel did not restore last year’s across-the-board cut to Hatch Act programs, providing $179.1, rather than $181 million. The Committee allocated $110.7 for Special Grants, with $1.1 million appropriated for the Rural Policies Research Institute.

Good News for NIJ

Unlike last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not deny funding to social science research at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)(see UPDATE September 8, 2003). In providing NIJ with an FY 2005 appropriation of $63.4 million, it included $10 million for “Social Science Research and Evaluation.” The NIJ will also continue to receive $5 million for the Violence Against Women program and $2 million from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for family support programs. The House provided $55 million for NIJ base funding. The Senate panel did not acknowledge the President’s DNA initiative, which the House passed in full, including a proposed $14 million for research, development, demonstration, and evaluation. The Senate did provide $120 million to help reduce the DNA backlog in the states.

The panel appropriated $32.1 million for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of which $2 million is for the conversion of the National Crime Victimization Survey into a fully automated data collection operation. The base budget is the same as FY 2004 and $6.9 million below the request. BJS will also receive $8 million for a victim notification system. The panel allocated $10 million for research, evaluation, technical assistance, and training in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention programs, much of it earmarked.

Difficult Numbers for Census Bureau

The Senate panel made life difficult for the Census Bureau, appropriating a total of $605.8 million. This is $18.5 million less than FY 2004 and $123 million less than the request. The House provided $773.9 million. Since 2005 is mid-way toward the next decennial census, the bureau’s funds need to steadily increase as we move closer to the next count. For Periodic Censuses and Programs, the allocation was $431.5 million, the same as last year, and $177 million below the request. Of that total, $250.6 million is for the 2010 Decennial Census, of which not less than $82.3 million is for the Master Address and Topographical Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGR) system. The Senate report makes no reference to the American Community Survey.

The account for Economic and Statistical Analysis, which includes the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), received $81.8 million from the Senate Committee. This is $7.6 million more than FY 2004, $3.6 million more than the House, and $6.6 million less than the request. Of the total, $75.4 million is for BEA to help it “improve the accuracy of its reports by replacing extrapolated data with real-time monthly data from retail outlets.” This is so that the Bureau can “remain

adaptive to the dynamic United States economy.”

The panel provided $360.8 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange programs at the Department of State. This is $44.1 million above FY 2004, $15.4 million above the request, and $15.5 million above the House. Of the total, $155 million is for the Fulbright program.

Agency for Health Research and Quality Gets Senate Support

While the House appropriated $303.7 million for the Agency for Health Research and Quality, the same as the budget request, the Senate recommended an additional $15 million in funding to the Agency, bringing the total amount to $318.7 million. The Senate directed the extra $15 million for research on outcomes, comparative clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness of prescription drugs as authorized in the Medicare and Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. The Senate attached the increase to the $260.7 million in funds appropriated for research on health costs, quality and outcomes (HCQO). The House provided $245.7 million for HCQO, which is the same as the FY 2004 comparable level and the budget request. Both committees directed that AHRQ devote $84 million of the total amount to patient safety and reducing medical errors. The House and Senate also maintained the same FY 2004 funding levels for Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys ($55.3 million) and program support ($2.7 million).

Senate Increases CDC Budget

The Senate appropriated just over $4.8 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for FY 2005. The Senate’s recommendation is an increase of $345.3 million above the administration’s budget request and $329.8 million above the House appropriation for the CDC. However, the level of funding requested by the Administration and House fell short of the comparable program level of just under $4.6 billion for FY 2004, so the Senate mark has increased funding for the CDC to $228.4 million above the previous fiscal year.

The Senate report language is based on the CDC’s new budget structure, which was designed to address the Senate’s concerns about indirect costs and what money goes to which programs within the agency. The Senate changes to how CDC funding is displayed and how the costs are allocated are meant to improve financial visibility within the CDC funding structure and enable the programs to benefit from the appropriated funding increases. Consequently, CDC programs that previously had their budgets specified by the appropriations committee have been combined with other programs to comprise the 11 coordinating clusters of the reorganized CDC budget.

Although the Senate did specify the level of funding for each coordinating cluster in its report, it also left the line item funding for multiple programs, such as Health Statistics and HIV/AIDS, STD, and TB Prevention unspecified. Overall, the Senate provided additional funding for FY 2005 to many CDC initiatives because the CDC pulled the indirect and management costs from their programs, transferring them into the Public Health Improvement and Leadership cluster. Under the reorganization, this cluster will encompass all leadership, management, and workforce costs.

Of the $4.8 billion total, the Senate panel marked $988.1 million for Heath Promotion (which contains Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Birth Defects, Developmental Disability and Health, Reach 2010, and Genomics in its cluster), an increase of $56 million from the comparable FY 2004 funding. The Health Information cluster, comprised of the National Center for Health Statistics and Health/Marketing Informatics, received $235.7 million, an increase of $19 million from the previous year. Public Health Research and Extramural Prevention Research had its level increased from $29.1 to $35 million for FY 2005. Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health cluster, which includes the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), received a $17.6 million increase in funding above the comparable FY 2004 level, and a stern directive in the report language stating that the CDC was “to make no changes to NIOSH’s current operating procedures and organizational structure and to ensure that no funds or personnel will be transferred from NIOSH to other components of the CDC by other means than traditional reprogramming of funds.”

BEMENT NAMED NSF DIRECTOR

On September 21, President Bush announced his intent to nominate Arden Bement as the next director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Bement had been serving as NSF’s Acting Director since February 22, 2004 following the resignation of Rita Colwell. He had also remained Director of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). It now appears that he will only have to do one job.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), reported the nomination to the Senate floor on September 22. Bement could be confirmed by the time Congress leaves around October 8.

Before his appointment as NIST director on December 7, 2001, Bement had a long and distinguished career in industry and academia. He served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management of the Electrical Power Grid.

Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, government, and academia. These positions included: vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc.; deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979-1980); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976-1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976); manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and senior research associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).

The new NSF director also served on the National Science Board, the policy advisory body to NSF, from 1989-95. Furthermore, he was a member of the first Advisory Committee to NSF’s Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, which was created in 1991.

Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of Mines, a master's degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

AAAS PRESIDENT LESHNER NOMINATED TO SCIENCE BOARD

After a long delay, President Bush has nominated eight individuals to serve on the National Science Board (NSB) for six year terms ending in 2010. Among them is Alan Leshner, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since December 2001. They replace eight people whose terms expired in May of 2004.

Trained as a physiological psychologist, Leshner has held a number of government positions since leaving Bucknell University, where he taught for ten years. From 1994-2001, he served as Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Before that, Leshner was the Deputy Director and Acting Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. He went to NIMH from NSF, where he held a variety of senior positions, focusing on basic research in the biological, behavioral and social sciences, science policy, and science education.

Leshner received his B.S. in psychology from Franklin and Marshall College, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physiological psychology from Rutgers University. He also holds honorary Doctor of Science degrees from Franklin and Marshall College and the Pavlov Medical University in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is an elected fellow of AAAS, the National Academy of Public Administration, and many other professional societies. Leshner is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science. In 1999, he was a featured speaker at the COSSA Annual Meeting.

Other nominees include: Purdue’s President Emeritus Stephen Beering (a reappointment); Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough; Harvey Mudd College President Jon Strauss; and former Astronaut Kathryn Sullivan, now President of the Center for Science and Industry in Columbus, OH. The nominees require Senate confirmation.

NIMH REORGANIZED: EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2004

On September 21, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Director Thomas Insel announced the completion of reorganization efforts he began earlier this year. The new organizational structure is effective October 1, 2004. NIMH was last reorganized in 1998 by then-director Steve Hyman. (See UPDATE, May 19. 1997)

Reporting to the National Advisory Mental Health Council (NAMHC), Insel explained that the reorganization of the Institute was done “with an eye to optimizing the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical research,” and the need to “break down silos.” A key aspect of the reorganization “is ensuring translation of the best ideas among divisions.” He emphasized his concern that without a restructuring of the Institute, translation would “fall through the cracks.” According to Insel, the “basic science priorities will now be set by the needs of the public health community.”

The Institute’s new organizational structure consists of five new divisions:

1. Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science (DNBBS)

2. Adult Translational Research and Treatment Development ((DATR)

3. Pediatric Translational Research and Treatment (DPTR)

4. AIDS and Health Behavior Research (DAHBR)

5. Services and Intervention Research (DSIR)

The next steps in the reorganization process, according to Insel, are the recruitment of program staff, the creation of inter-divisional teams for research support, and the development of priority statements for portfolio management.

Insel also reported to the Council that he feels “this is a time of great scientific excitement for mental health research. To take full advantage of new scientific opportunities, NIMH is setting priorities for funding and reorganizing to enhance translation research.” At the May meeting of the advisory council, NAMHC accepted the report of a workgroup to the Council chaired by AAAS CEO Alan Leshner, Setting Priorities for Basic Brain and Behavioral Science Research at NIMH. The report responded to Insel’s request for advice in setting “clear priorities” and to “ensure maximal impact of the Institute’s investments” (See UPDATE, May 17, 2004).

Basic research a low priority?

Expressing appreciation to Insel on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA) for reaching out to the community from the beginning of the reorganization efforts, Merry Bullock, Associate Executive Director for Science, commended him for establishing the Council working groups to set priorities. Applauding Insel’s goals for the Institute, Bullock noted that APA’s constituents “share [his] goal of finding the best ways to diagnose, prevent and treat mental illness, some explicitly and directly in their research, others through more basic science.”

She emphasized that the community remains concerned regarding the means of achieving these goals. Particularly, Bullock cautioned, by framing NIMH’s mission “primarily as translation and science-to-service, you may disable the basic end of the continuum that feeds this goal over the long term. You speak of harvesting basic research for its application to mental disorders – we are concerned that the new organizational structure will not allow our scientists to deliver this basic research.”

According to Bullock, the community has two levels of concerns. The first is personnel. She noted that there are currently staff positions for behavioral research that have been open for some time. In addition, some of the basic behavioral science positions have moved into other divisions. Bullock urged Insel to fill the open positions as rapidly as possible and to make the positions visible to the community.

The second area of concern pertains to the major change of focus to translational research. Agreeing that this focus was vital, Bullock cautioned that this change in focus “must be balanced with a focus on training and research at the other end of the pipeline in terms of basic research in areas that ultimately contribute to preventing, diagnosing, or treating mental and emotional disorders.”

Noting that his report and the descriptions of NIMH’s new organizational structure assures that “this work will find a home,” Bullock countered that the message being sent to the community “is that basic behavioral research is scattered and has a low priority at NIMH.”

She expressed hope that Insel would “consider the long-term consequences that stymieing basic research will have on later translation.” In closing, Bullock stressed the timely need to foster this research, given the recent amendment to the House-passed Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill to halt further funding for two NIMH grants in social and personality studies (See UPDATE, September 13, 2004).

For more information on priority setting and the reorganization see: www.nimh.nih.gov.

COSSA WELCOMES NEW MEMBER

COSSA welcomes its newest member, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. We look forward to working with its members.