Advocacy
This year, the APS Public Affairs (PA) Committee has pursued an advocacy strategy aimed at bringing attention to the looming funding crisis that will likely result when stimulus money runs out at the end of the current fiscal year. During our fall meeting in October 2009, committee members traveled to Capitol Hill where we met with staff from 12 Congressional offices. This was part of annual outreach effort to develop strong relationships with Members of Congress and provide them with information and resources concerning the importance of physiology research. Our talking points emphasized the need for sustainable growth in biomedical research funding as opposed to fluctuating budget cycles. In addition, he APS sent a letter to President Obama making the case for predictable, sustainable research funding.
The APS submitted written testimony to the House of Representatives and the Senate on the FY 2011 budgets for the National Institutes of Health (Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee) and the National Science Foundation and NASA (Commerce, Science, Justice Subcommittee). Letters in support of funding for the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program at the VA were also sent to the relevant committees in the House and Senate.
The APS participates in the following coalitions that advocate for research funding:
Research Means Hope has created advertisements urging public support for biomedical research and has launched an online petition drive urging Congress and the administration to make sustained, increased funding for NIH one of our country’s highest priorities.
Ad Hoc Group For Medical Research. APS supports the Ad Hoc Group, which is composed of dozens of advocacy groups that work together to support increased funding for the NIH.
Coalition for Science Funding. APS supports the CNSF recommendations for the National Science Foundation.
Friends of VA. APS supports the Friends of VA’s recommendations for VA medical and prosthetic research.
Looking forward to the year ahead, the PA Committee has begun planning a symposium at the 2011 Experimental Biology meeting in Washington, DC to assist APS members who want to become research advocates themelves.
Policy Issues at the NIH
The committee continues an ongoing discussion of policy issues at the NIH. Committee members reviewed NIH Director Francis Collins’ stated scientific priorities, and Drs. Sun and Galligan drafted a statement outlining the many roles that physiology can play in advancing these scientific priorities. Their white paper (“NIH Director’s Priorities: Opportunities for Physiology”) appeared in the June 2010 issue of The Physiologist.
There has been extensive discussion of the enhanced NIH peer review system. Committee members suggested drafting a letter to NIH inquiring about the uniformity of the review process between CSR and the various IC’s. Other issues discussed include training for reviewers on special emphasis panels, and clustering of applications during review. Committee members agreed that there are many more issues that may need to be considered, but as the system is still in flux the best thing to do may be to wait until reviewers and applicants have more experience. As a follow up to this discussion, the Public Affairs Committee drafted a set of questions for CSR Director Toni Scarpa. His responses were reported in an article that appeared in the June 2010 issue of The Physiologist.
Committee name change
The APS Public Affairs Committee has recommended that its name be changed to the Science Policy Committee because this term more accurately reflects the scope of the Committee’s interests. The goal of the name change is greater clarity concerning the mission of the committee.