Public Affairs

Public Affairs

APS Urges Revisions to VA Peer Review Plan
APS to Sponsor 2004 Mass Media Fellowship
Zerhouni Proposes NIH “Roadmap”
AAHRPP Offering Accreditation Workshops in Washington
Primates in Research: Opportunity and Challenge

APS Urges Revisions to VA Peer Review Plan

    Merit review of grant applications at the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Research and Development (ORD) has been a topic of concern since the spring. On April 1, 2003, DVA Chief of Research and Development Nelda Wray informed 18 investigators that support for their research would not be forthcoming, as they had earlier been told to expect. These decisions were based in part upon a re-review of investigators’ “productivity” using new guidelines established by Wray.
    The April 1 announcement provoked a firestorm of protest within the VA investigator community. The “de-funding” of the grants took place on the very day that funding was supposed to have commenced. Wray, who was then only a few months into her tenure, said that the rescissions were needed so that ORD could move new directions. The funding decision on one grant was subsequently reversed, and bridge funding was provided to the remaining 17 investigators, but widespread concerns remained. Wray began a series of consultations with VA investigators and the broader research community to discuss her vision of how to make the VA’s $400 million research program more responsive to veterans’ health needs.
    Along with broad questions about the direction of the ORD research program, there has also been an on-going discussion about merit review of grant applications centering on how the qualifications of grant applicants should be assessed. Many researchers objected to the secondary review of productivity by ORD staff that produced numerical scorecards based upon specific criteria. Wray responded by asking for comments on the criteria as well as on the question of who should evaluate applicant qualifications. The APS provided comments that in opposition to both the numerical scoring and the role of ORD in the review process.
    In a comment letter, APS President John Williams urged ORD “not to implement this numerical scoring system, but rather to provide appropriate guidance” to peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are “the appropriate ones to make this assessment rather than the ORD central staff,” Williams wrote. He also pointed out that the proposed criteria “have not been validated as predictors of performance” and noted further that the “proposed performance criteria are not reflective of productivity across disciplines and in different types of research projects.”
    In the sample productivity criteria for a full professor supplied by ORD, full marks for “excellent” productivity would be awarded to an individual who had two or more active grants from non-VA funding sources, was the principal investigator on at least one grant, and was primary author on all (or most) of five or more articles a year that were published in “high quality, peer reviewed journals” as defined by ORD.
    “These yardsticks are not universal indicators of ‘excellent’ productivity,” Williams noted in the APS letter. “In fact, numerous scenarios can readily be imagined if these standards were implemented that would unjustly ‘reward’ or ‘punish’ investigators because of the nature of their research,” Williams wrote.
    The letter goes on to list the following issues that were not reflected in the proposed productivity criteria:

Complexity of the work. There are significant differences in expected productivity across disciplines, with clinical research and epidemiological studies representing two notable areas that require an extended period to reach fruition. Similarly, productivity for a discipline such as physiology will differ from that in other areas of science.
Publication impact: Journal impact factors may not be the most appropriate measure of the actual impact of the research. Subspecialty journals may have relatively low impact factors but research published in them may have immediate and significant impact on those practicing in the field.
Multiple responsibilities of PI’s. The output of a research group depends upon the scope of its funding. Many productive VA investigators also have important non-research responsibilities such as clinical service, teaching and training, and administrative duties. It would be counterproductive to the VA’s mission if the ORD productivity assessment criteria were to create incentives for personnel to divorce themselves from these activities in order to improve their chances of obtaining VA research funding. Numbers of papers alone is not a valid measure of productivity because it fails to take into account how much of the PI’s effort is dedicated to research and number of personnel in the lab.
Funding: To take account only of outside funding will distort the focus of the VA research program by tending to reward those whose research is aligned with the research objectives of other funding sources.

“Output is so dependent upon the specific situation of investigators that productivity cannot be accurately compared through numerical scoring,” Williams noted, summarizing APS concerns.
In response to the comments received, Wray announced in late October that productivity would be assessed qualitatively rather than scored numerically, and that merit review panels rather than the ORD office would make those assessments.

APS to Sponsor 2004 Mass Media Fellowship

    For the sixth consecutive year, APS will sponsor an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellow for summer 2004. Applications are due to the AAAS by January 15, 2004.
    The APS-sponsored fellow will be one of approximately two dozen AAAS Mass Media fellows who will spend 10 weeks during the summer working in the newsrooms of newspapers, magazines, Internet news outlets, and radio and television stations. Fellows will receive a short training course in science journalism prior to the fellowship, and will spend the summer developing their ability to communicate complex scientific issues to non-scientists and improving public understanding of science. The AAAS arranges placements at participating media outlets as part of the selection process. The fellowship includes travel to Washington for orientation and evaluation sessions at the beginning and end of the summer, as well as travel to the job site and a weekly stipend based upon local cost of living.
    Individuals must be currently enrolled as a graduate or postgraduate student of physiology or a related discipline to apply for the APS fellowship. The application form is available in the “Student Awards” section of the APS website at http://www.the-aps.org/awards/student.htm#AAAS. Additional fellowships are available for students in other scientific and engineering disciplines. Information about the program is posted on the AAAS Education and Human Resources Directorate website at http://ehrweb.aaas.org/massmedia.htm. A brochure with additional information about the program is also posted on both web sites.
    In addition to the application form, applicants must submit a current résumé, a three- to five-page sample of writing directed to the general public, transcripts of graduate and undergraduate work, and three letters of recommendation. Two of the recommendation letters should be from faculty members, and the third should be a personal reference. The selection process is designed to seek out qualified candidates especially from under-represented communities, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and scientists with disabilities.
    For more information or to receive a copy of the application by mail, contact Stacy Brooks in the APS Communications Office. (Tel. 301-634-7253; Email: sbrooks@the-aps.org).

Zerhouni Proposes NIH “Roadmap”

    NIH Director Elias Zerhouni has proposed that the NIH direct $2 billion over the next five years to priorities identified in a strategic planning process he has dubbed the NIH Roadmap. Zerhouni began the consultations that led to the Roadmap shortly after he was confirmed as NIH director in May 2002.
    “There has been a scientific revolution in the last few years,” Zerhouni said in a September 30 statement announcing the plan. “The opportunities for discovery have never been greater, but the complexity of biology remains a daunting challenge.
    “With this new strategy for medical research, NIH is uniquely positioned to spark the changes that must be made to transform scientific knowledge into tangible benefits for people,” Zerhouni said.
    The Roadmap represents Zerhouni’s effort to provide direction for the NIH in the post-doubling era. It is also needed to explain to Congress and the public today’s challenges in biology and why it is still important for the NIH to receive meaningful increases. The major themes of the Roadmap are:

New Pathways to Discovery
Research Teams of the Future
Reengineering the Clinical
Research Enterprise

Further information is available on the NIH website at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov.
Zerhouni plans to allocate $124 million for programs related to the Roadmap in the fiscal year that began October 1, 2003. The President’s FY 2004 budget request for the NIH included $35 million for Roadmap activities. The balance of the funds in FY 2004 as well as the vast majority of funding in future years will come from the institutes, centers, and divisions of the NIH.

AAHRPP Offering Accreditation Workshops in Washington

    The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP) is offering one- and three-day workshops to assist research facility staff in preparing a self-assessment. An institutional self-assessment is the first step in seeking accreditation of a human subjects research program.
    AAHRPP was incorporated in April 2001. Its founding members are FASEB, the Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of American Universities, Consortium of Social Science Associations, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, National Health Council, and Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research. AAHRPP offers voluntary accreditation that employs peer-review and an educational approach.
    Through AAHRPP accreditation, research institutions can demonstrate their commitment and ability to conduct ethically sound research. A variety of organizations, including universities, hospitals, independent review boards, and government agencies, may apply.
    As of October 2003 full AAHRPP Accreditation had been extended to Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center (Richmond, VA), the New England Institutional Review Board (Wellesley, MA), University of Iowa (Iowa City) and Western Institutional Review Board (Olympia, WA). In addition, Baylor Research Institute (Dallas, TX) had received Qualified Accreditation.
    The first step in the accreditation process is an extensive internal assessment that is submitted to AAHRPP as a program description. Guidance for developing this assessment is provided by AAHRPP’s “Accreditation Standards and Evaluation Instrument for Site Visitors.” The AAHRPP workshops are intended to help institutions navigate the process and are designed to answer these frequently asked questions:

What departments and staff should be involved in the self-assessment process?
What resources are needed to conduct the self-assessment?
How long does the self-assessment take to complete?
What can we expect once the self-assessment is submitted to AAHRPP?
What happens during a site visit?
What are the common problems that organizations are encountering?

For registration, fee, and schedule information, visit http://www.aahrpp.org/workshops.htm, or contact Todd Bentsen, AAHRPP Assistant Director for Marketing & Communications, at 202-783-8133 or tbentsen@aahrpp.org.

Primates in Research: Opportunity and Challenge

    “Primates in Research: Opportunity and Challenge” is a fact sheet that addresses questions people ask about research with nonhuman primates. It is available on the APS website at http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/primates.htm.
    “Today, as we enter an era where we can unravel the mysteries of the genome and understand diseases at the molecular level, the role of nonhuman primates is more critical than ever in the search for cures,” the fact sheet states. Nonhuman primates represent a crucial research model because of their “striking similarities” to human beings.
    The fact sheet goes on to note that while “nonhuman primates are critical to biomedical research targeting the causes, progression, prevention, and treatment of a wide variety of human diseases,” it is also the case that “the benefits move in both directions” since breakthroughs in human medicine “are also used to treat diseases in other animals, including nonhuman primates.”
    The fact sheet includes a link to further information provided by the National Primate Research Centers in their new brochure “Linking Research to Healthy Living” (http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/nprcbrochure.pdf).

[Index] [Education Outreach] [Membership] [APS News] [Education] [Publications]
[Experimental Biology 2004] [Book Review] [Positions Available] [People & Places] [News From Senior Physiologists] [Announcements] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses]
[APS Membership Application]