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
August 23 Visit Summary
NIH reauthorization was one of the central issues on the agenda at the FASEB Science Policy Committee (SPC) "Face-to-Face" meeting held August 21–22 in Bethesda. (The SPC, comprised of representatives of all the FASEB societies, usually meets via conference call.) APS Science Policy (PA) Committee Chair Bill Talman represented the society at the meeting and Animal Care and Experimentation (ACE) Committee Chair Kevin Kregel participated in an ad hoc capacity. Talman is a member of SPC subcommittees on NIH Issues and Enhanced Public Access and chairs the Animals in Research and Education subcommittee. Kregel serves as an ad hoc member of this subcommittee to ensure maximum coordination between APS and FASEB efforts on animal research issues.
Congressional staffer Cheryl Jaeger was the keynote speaker at the opening session of the SPC meeting. Jaeger just became a Senior Policy Advisor for health matters to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO). She worked on NIH reauthorization legislation in her previous position on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is continuing to do so in her new capacity. Jaeger noted that Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) has made it a priority to reassert his panel's oversight authority by moving an NIH reauthorization bill. Most government agencies are reauthorized every few years, but the last NIH reauthorization bill was passed in 1993. She described Barton's goal as making sure that the newly-doubled NIH operates "efficiently, effectively, and wisely." She previewed a number of elements of a revised draft of the reauthorization legislation that was released the next day. (See accompanying story for further details.)
On August 23, Talman and Kregel made Capitol Hill visits accompanied by Alice Ra'anan and Rebecca Osthus. They met with legislative aides to Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) to discuss the Animal Welfare Act. They also met with Sen. Harkin's legislative aide on the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee to discuss NIH funding. A similar meeting was scheduled with the Legislative Director to Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) to thank him for defending a University of Iowa researcher whose five-year grant to study depression in pigeons was targeted for elimination in an amendment sponsored by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) that was added to the House version of the NIH funding legislation. (Talman had written a letter to the editor of the Iowa City Press-Citizen praising Leach's remarks on the House floor.) As it happened, Rep. Leach was in the office and dropped in on the meeting so Talman was able to thank him directly.
The meetings with Agriculture staffers the Animal Welfare Act were intended to find out whether they were aware of any efforts by animal activists to introduce new AWA regulatory requirements or research restrictions as amendments to the farm bill, which is coming up for reauthorization next year. Both Grassley and Harkin are members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and while neither staffer was aware of any such activity, Kregel indicated his ongoing interest and asked them to contact him if any such amendments are in the works.
Harkin's Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee aide was pessimistic about the likelihood that the Senate's funding legislation would make it to the Senate floor as a separate bill and thought it more likely that the legislation would be included in omnibus bill. He said it was important for NIH supporters to ask their senators and representatives to support the higher funding level recommended in the Senate bill. (The Senate's recommendation is based upon an accounting gimmick that House Republicans oppose.)
Talman pointed out that it is not simply a question of how much money Congress appropriates, but also how effectively those dollars are spent. In that connection, he mentioned the possibility that a reauthorization bill might make extensive changes to NIH. Unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements added through Animal Welfare Act amendments would also divert funds. He also mentioned that NIH's new publication efforts to provide enhanced public access to authors' manuscript versions of articles based upon NIH-funded research duplicates efforts already being undertaken by nonprofit publishers such as the APS. The staffer agreed that reauthorization could have a significant impact but did not think that NIH's public access program would do so. The Senate Appropriations Committee included language in the committee report that accompanies the NIH funding legislation asking the agency to report about various aspects of the program, including the costs of operating the database. It was suggested that the Congress should go further in seeking information on the total costs of the program, including the cost of software to process manuscripts and link them to other NIH resources, as well as staff costs associated with establishing and promoting the program as well as to monitor the database and verify the accuracy of links to other resources.
Back to August 29, 2005 Update