Bioscience Briefing
For info about biomedical funding, animal research and other bioscience issues, click here.
Science Policy Announcements
For the latest news from the APS Science Policy click here.
Resource Book Now Available
Click here for more info on The APS Resource Book for the Design of Animal Exercise Protocols.
APS Science Policy Update
In this issue:
- FY 2006 Funding Status
- Peer Review at the NIH
- More on Rep. Barton's NIH investigation (full text of WSJ article)
FY 2006 funding for NIH With the new fiscal year beginning on October 1, it continues to look unlikely that Congress will be able to complete all of its spending bills on time. The full Senate has yet to take up debate on the Labor-HHS-Ed spending bill that funds the NIH, and as in previous years, it may end up as part of an omnibus measure that would combine multiple spending bills. Because of several controversial measures related to the legislation, including Labor-HHS-Ed Subcommittee Chairman Specter's threat to include funds for embryonic stem cell research, leaders in the Senate are hesitant to open debate. Recent news reports have mentioned the possibility of Congress passing a year-long continuing resolution (CR) to fund unfinished spending bills. In addition to controlling spending by holding budgets to FY 2005 levels, passage of a year-long CR would free up time in Congress for other priorities.
Peer review at NIH During last week's FASEB OPA staff meeting, concerns were expressed regarding the quality of the peer review system at the NIH. Specifically, some FASEB scientists raised the issue with their government affairs staff that they feel as though the quality of study sections is degrading. This is not the first time that the peer review process at the NIH and other federal agencies has been the subject of debate, and while the system may have flaws, the consensus remains that peer review is the best way to determine grant funding. When Dr. Zerhouni was asked in a recent forum specifically what Congress should not consider changing in the NIH reauthorization bill, he responded that peer review was critical to NIH's success.
Antonio Scarpa, an APS member, currently heads the Center for Scientific Review at NIH. His stated goals since assuming the position earlier this year are to achieve shorter review times, address complaints regarding the competitive disadvantages of clinical research grants, increase funding for more innovative projects, and recruitment and retention of accomplished peer reviewers. FASEB Science Policy staff indicated that from time to time NIH administrators have met with FASEB to address concerns about peer review, and that it may be time to schedule a meeting. The Peer Review Advisory Committee (PRAC), which meets regularly to provide advice to the NIH director and the Center for Scientific Review, is another forum for raising any concerns about the system.
A recent opinion article in the Scientist by David Kaplan of Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine also addressed the subject of how to improve peer review, including suggestions for how to revamp and streamline the process. http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/9/12/10/1
Wall Street Journal Article on Rep. Barton's NIH Investigation This article follows up on the blurb that Alice sent around this morning regarding letters from the House Energy and Commerce committee to HHS requesting inquiries into the (mis)use of NIH funds. The letters are available on the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee website at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/09202005_1653.htm and http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/09202005_1652.htm