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
Advocacy Community meets to discuss NIH reauthorization
On August 25, 2005, members of the biomedical research advocacy community came together in Washington, D.C. at a meeting organized by FASEB and the AAMC to discuss NIH reauthorization. Cheryl Jaeger, the lead Congressional staffer for this issue, discussed the intent of the House Energy and Commerce committee and answered questions about the recently released second draft of the NIH reauthorization bill.
With Congress away for the August recess, the latest draft of the bill still lacks many critical details that require approval by the committee. Currently, the draft bill maintains the division of NIH's institutes and centers (ICs) into two categories — mission-specific and science-enabling. The draft gives the Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives in the office of the director (referred to as the ‘Division’) oversight of trans-NIH activity planning, but in contrast to the first draft moves grant-making authority back to the ICs. This change was at the request of Dr. Zerhouni, who testified in July that he did not believe the Office of the Director needed direct grant-making authority.
In terms of appropriations, the bill in its present form would specify funding levels for Fiscal Years 2007–2009 for only three line items: the Office of the Director, mission-specific ICs and science-enabling ICs. The process for defining individual IC funding levels is not specified. In addition, the bill establishes a Common Fund that is a percentage of the IC budgets. While the percentage is not specified in the current draft, it is expected to increase incrementally over the next three years. The money from the Common Fund will be used for trans-NIH activities identified by the Division, with the money being returned to the relevant institutes for distribution to peer-reviewed trans-NIH projects. A separate Transfer Fund (also a percentage of the IC budgets) will be established for the Director to respond to areas of need at his/her discretion. Importantly, the NIH reauthorization bill could set the agency’s funding levels for the next three years and those numbers are absent from the current draft.
The bill also clarifies some details with regard to the Director's revised reporting requirements, procedures for reorganizing ICs and the Office of the Director, and makeup of the Advisory Council to the Director.
The overall concern of the advocacy community remains the impact that this reorganization could have on funding for investigator-initiated research. Moving forward, the group hopes to be able to raise common concerns and questions with the Congress, while each organization can address specific or parochial concerns individually.
Back to August 29, 2005 Update