The APS Public Affairs (PA) Committee continues to work within the framework of the 2006 APS Strategic Plan, with particular focus on PA activities in relation to the Society's efforts to drive understanding of and appreciation for physiology and strengthen public and private support.
Leadership Interactions with FASEB
Throughout the past year, William Talman has been serving as the APS representative to the FASEB Board of Directors and Michael Portman (Public Affairs Committee Chair) has taken on the role of Science Policy Committee (SPC) representative. In addition to Talman's regular activities on the FASEB Board, he was also elected to serve a two-year term on the FASEB Public Affairs Committee. This committee meets twice a year to review public affairs strategy, set priorities and carry out long term planning. As a member of the Science Policy Committee, Portman sits on the Clinical Research subcommittee, which has recently worked on issues such as the new requirements for registering clinical trials, and tracking the career outcomes of trainees in clinical research.
Committee Meetings
The PA committee held its first face-to-face meeting in Bethesda, MD in October 2007. One of the main topics of discussion was peer review at the NIH, and the committee decided on three action items: 1) gathering data on study section composition; 2) drafting an editorial on peer review issues; and 3) recognizing APS members who serve as peer reviewers for NIH. The committee has begun to gather data on some NIH study sections to determine whether the membership is skewed towards less experienced investigators, which could be problematic for peer review. The committee will continue to track several study sections over time to see if there is a trend that warrants the attention of the committee. The effort to draft an editorial has been put off until the changes currently being implemented at NIH are farther along.
Members of the committee also discussed ways to increase the Society's advocacy efforts and presence on Capitol Hill. One suggestion was to work with other APS committees to get our members to meet with their Members of Congress while they are here for other APS activities. Another suggestion was a series of local seminars or workshops on advocacy for scientists.
At the conclusion of the committee meeting, seven members went to Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress and their staff to discuss funding for biomedical research.
At its 2008 fall meeting, the committee plans to focus on the growing amount of regulatory and administrative burden that investigators have to deal with. There will also be Hill visits.
Peer Review Activities
An ongoing topic of consideration for the committee has been the peer review system at the NIH. During the past year, the committee generated a response to the request for information (NOT-OD-07-074) put out last summer by the NIH, as well as a response to the February 2008 Final Draft Report from the NIH Director's Office. While some initiatives have already been piloted, others will be put into practice in the coming months and the committee plans to monitor and provide feedback as necessary.
Experimental Biology 2008: Summary of PA Events in San Diego
The public affairs committee sponsored a symposium at EB 2008 in San Diego entitled "What Every Scientist Needs to Know about Ethical Issues in Biomedical Research." The session was chaired by Jane Reckelhoff, and the speakers were Michael Mann (Univ. of Nebraska Medical Center), Michael Kalichman (Univ. of California, San Diego) and Jeffrey Khan (Univ. of Minnesota). Attendance was good and the speakers addressed a wide range of topics including scientific misconduct, data handling, conflict of interest and the ethical issues associated with the development of new technologies.
Another PA event at EB was a session featuring Lawrence Tabak and Keith Yamamoto, who have been chairing the Advisory Committee to the Director's Working Group on Peer Review. They discussed the changes that were recommended in the Final Draft Report on peer review that was issued in February. Attendance at this event was very good (standing room only) and there was a line of several people to ask questions throughout the discussion period. Members of the FASEB leadership and the APS were on hand to raise points of concern that will hopefully be reflected in the implementation of the report's recommendations. There has been significant concern about a disconnect between the NIH leadership and the scientific community, mainly because NIH is making policy changes at a rapid pace without allowing adequate time for the scientific community to consider the changes and generate responses.
Experimental Biology 2009
This year the committee has chosen to focus on the topic of regulatory and administrative burden for the symposium at EB 2009. Together with the APS Animal Care and Experimentation (ACE) committee we have submitted an abstract for the Joint Programming Committee's consideration entitled "Scientists and Regulatory Burden: Navigating the Rugged Landscape." Speakers have not yet been selected, but there are several organizations that we could draw from including the Federal Demonstration Partnership and the Council on Government Relations. The session will be chaired by Portman and committee member emeritus Joseph R. Haywood.
Other Science Policy Activities 2007-2008
Appropriations testimony: submitted to House and Senate on the FY 2009 budgets for the National Institutes of Health (Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee), the National Science Foundation and NASA (Commerce, Science, Justice subcommittee), and the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program at the VA (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs subcommittee).
Genetic Nondiscrimination: The APS is a member of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, which was successful in getting Congressional passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) after more than 10 years of stalled efforts. The APS submitted a letter in support of the legislation in its final days of consideration.
SBIR Reauthorization: As the House of Representatives considered reauthorizing the Small Business and Innovative Research (SBIR) program this year, some Members of Congress wanted to increase the funding set-aside at agencies including the NIH and NSF 2.5 to 3%. This would have diverted funds from investigator initiated research at a time when funding is already painfully tight. Thanks to an amendment sponsored by Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) the increase was stricken from the legislation. Representative David Obey (D-WI) supported the Ehlers amendment in remarks on the House floor which highlighted the potential danger of increasing the set-aside in the current fiscal climate. The APS sent letters thanking both Congressmen for their work on behalf of the scientific community. This issue is likely to resurface this fall when the Senate considers SBIR reauthorization. Congress must either extend the current authorization or pass a new bill before the current law expires on September 30, 2008. The most recent version legislation in the Senate proposes doubling the SBIR set-aside to 5% over a number of years. The bill has not yet been passed out of the Small Business Committee.