Public Affairs
Biomedical Research: Advocacy Needed
USDA Expected to Resume Web Posting of Animal Facility Reports
Federal Agencies to Allow Multiple PIs on Research Grants and Contracts
The most important thing that researchers can do is explain scientific research and the impact that it has on society. While physiologists are clearly familiar with how basic science discoveries lead to a better understanding of health and disease, the connections are not as clear to members of the public and the people making funding decisions in Washington.
How to explain science: starting points
The press regularly focuses on the latest medical and drug discoveries because they relate to common medical problems that face patients today. Beyond the headlines, however, there are often intriguing stories that show the important role of government–
supported basic research performed at academic institutions. One way to build greater appreciation for basic science is to make people aware of the science behind the breakthrough. FASEB has written a series of articles called Breakthroughs in Bioscience tracing the science behind important health innovations. These articles are available on the FASEB website at http://www.faseb.org/opa/break/.
Using examples from your own research is also very effective in conveying the importance of science. Research requires the kind of commitment that is inspired by a true love of science, and sharing that with the public can be very powerful. In addition, understanding what actually goes on in the research labs can demystify the need for funding.
Thirdly, certain basic physiological discoveries that have had major impacts on the way we think about science and biology have been highlighted in the Classic Papers in Physiology series published by the American Journal of Physiology (AJP) (http://www.the-aps.org/publications/classics/). Below are descriptions of a few of these findings from this series, which looks back at the last hundred years of physiology research. While these examples may seem far removed from the splashy discoveries frequently reported in the press, they effectively convey the lasting impact of basic scientific research. These concepts are central to our understanding of biology and they will continue to be the foundation upon which research continually builds.
- Arthur Guyton’s pioneering work in the field of cardiac physiology is reviewed in the essay by John Hall (http://www.the-aps.org/publications/classics/hall.pdf). Guyton’s innovative experiments as described in his 1955 American Journal of Physiology paper have led to a new understanding of how the body regulates cardiac output. Guyton revolutionized his field with the use of quantitative techniques and some of the earliest available computer models, using them to show that peripheral circulation and venous return are critical in determining cardiac output. His forward-thinking approaches integrated the fields of physics, physiology, engineering and mathematics, thereby laying the groundwork for the developing field of biomedical engineering. This concept of integrating disciplines is now widely recognized as key to pushing the boundaries of science and developing solutions to complex problems.
- Two exercise physiology papers by Philip Gollnick from the early 1970s are reviewed in the essay by Christopher Ingalls (http://www.the-aps.org/publications/classics/ingalls.pdf). Gollnick and his colleagues studied exercise-induced fiber type plasticity in human muscle, documenting the distribution of slow and fast twitch fibers in endurance-trained athletes. These early studies are part of a body of literature that has extensively explored the properties of muscle under different conditions. This work contributes not only to the understanding of a multitude of diseases that involve muscle, but also helps scientists and medical providers understand what happens to the muscles of people experiencing paralysis or long-term microgravity.
- The work of Hurley Motley on pulmonary circulation is described in Andrew Fishman’s essay (http://www.the-aps.org/publications/classics/fishman.pdf). Building on earlier work done in animals, Motley and colleagues showed that blood vessels in the human lung respond to hypoxic conditions by undergoing vasoconstriction. The observation of this physiological phenomenon (hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, or HPV) has been the basis for years of study that have established HPV as a major factor in certain types of heart and lung disease. Despite nearly six decades of research since this initial observation, the molecular mechanisms underlying HPV remain largely unknown and are still an active area of investigation. Understanding the mechanism of HPV will be critical in developing treatments for associated diseases.
How to get the word out
Every day we have opportunities to tell our friends, family, and acquaintances about what we do and why it is important. It is also important to take advantage of opportunities to make presentations or participate in discussion groups at local science museums, schools, and health care institutions. Over the next few years, it will also be increasingly important to make the case for medical research to our elected officials. There is very little room for growth because of the deficit and competition from other programs, but research budgets may do marginally better if we explain why this is important.
Letters are one way to communicate with Congress. For guidelines on preparing letters, refer to the Legislative Action Center on the APS Public Affairs website
(http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/communicating_congress.htm). In addition, most Senators and Representatives have office hours or town meetings in their home districts where constituents can talk about their concerns.
With an annual investment in biomedical research at the NIH approaching $28 billion dollars, scientists have to justify the need for continued growth in a time of tight budgets. Fostering a better understanding of science at all levels will help ensure continued support for government investment in research.
FY 2005 Funding Approved
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
In the second year following the completed doubling of the budget, NIH was provided with a $28.8 billion appropriation. However, the budget will only be $28.6 after the 0.8% cut. This sum will be further subjected to a 2.4% transfer of funds to other public health service (PHS) programs, leaving approximately $27.9 billion available for programs. This “tap” is spent at the discretion of the Secretary of HHS, and in recent years, the percentage transferred from NIH to other PHS programs has steadily increased from 1.25% originally, to 2.4% currently.
The NIH’s $27.9 billion appropriation represents a 2% increase in funding over its FY 2004 budget, which is significantly below the projected inflation rate for biomedical sciences (currently 3.5%). The impact that the limited increase in funds will have on new grants is not yet clear, but it is estimated that the money lost from the 0.8% cut and 2.4% fund transfer alone would have funded as many as 545 new grants. According to NIH, the number of new grants may increase with a return to 2003 levels after declining in 2004. At the same time proposal success rates may drop as low as 27%, and the funding level of individual new and continuing grants may decrease to compensate for fewer available dollars.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Despite support in Congress for an effort to double the budget of the National Science Foundation between 2002 and 2007, funding for that agency declined 1.9% to $5.5 billion. The budget will be $5.47 billion after the 0.8% cut, which is $105 million less than was appropriated in FY 2004. Within the NSF, the largest decrease was in Education and Human Resources, which fell from $939 million to $841 million, a decrease of 10.4%.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
The R&D budget for the VA declined 0.8% to $813 million this year. Of that, $405.6 million ($402.35 million after the 0.8% cut) will go to medical and prosthetic research. This is a decrease of approximately $0.4 million over 2004 funding.
NASA
The NASA budget for Biological and Physical Research was allocated a total of $1.048 billion ($1.04 billion after the 0.8% cut), representing a 5.5% increase over 2004 levels. However, this figure is an estimate based on language in the appropriations bill and NASA has wide latitude in determining the spending allocation from the agency’s overall appropriation of $16.2 billion.
Most figures were taken from the AAAS analysis of the R&D funding in the FY 2005 appropriations bill, available at the URL http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1104.htm.
USDA Expected to Resume Web Posting of Animal Facility Reports
In January the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a ruling that opens the way for USDA to resume posting reports of Animal Welfare Act (AWA) facility inspection reports on its website.
USDA first began posting such reports on October 1, 2001 as part of its compliance with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA) Amendments. However, this practice was halted in 2002 in response to heightened security concerns as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and a growing appreciation for the threat posed by animal rights extremists. USDA halted E-FOIA posting of facility inspection reports and referred the matter to the DOJ for review.
On January 7 NABR issued an alert because DOJ had issued a ruling that opens the way for USDA posting of inspection reports to resume. The specifics of that ruling were not available at the time of this writing.
The AWA requires USDA to conduct an annual unannounced inspection of registered research facilities. Afterwards the USDA inspector issues a report indicating any violations of AWA regulations for veterinary care, animal husbandry, program oversight, or protocol review. This report is the document that USDA must provide when someone makes an FOIA request for a facility inspection report. It is also the document that will again be posted to the USDA website. The problem is that any infraction of the AWA regulations is considered a violation. If one does not understand the regulations, it may not be obvious which violations might endanger the life and health of animals and which ones involve record keeping or other administrative matters procedures that do not endanger animals. A second problem with these records is that the inspector may cite an institution for a violation because of a difference in professional judgment with institutional veterinarians or a difference of opinion on how to interpret what the AWA regulations require. The institution may be successful in appealing the violation, but the citation still remains a permanent part of the inspection report.
It has been shown that animal activists use the Internet to obtain information on institutions that use animals, and that extremists in the movement similarly use the Internet to identify potential targets. As a matter of prudence, NABR advises research institutions to request a copy of their inspection reports. This will enable them to know what information is being disclosed to the public. In addition, the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research suggests that animal facility staff review the report carefully during their exit interviews with USDA inspectors to ensure its accuracy and to make sure that it does not contain identifying information about protocols, researchers, or staff members.
Federal Agencies to Allow Multiple PIs on Research Grants and Contracts
The action was the result of public comment gathered by the Research Business Models Subcommittee (RBM) of the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on Science (the NSTC is a cabinet level council through which the Executive Office of the President coordinates science and technology policies across the federal government). The RBM seeks to encourage collaborative research and streamline the management of federal grant awards. In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on developing interdisciplinary research to address complex scientific problems. This shift from the typical lab structure has necessitated other changes in the field. The concern has been that without the usual measures of achievement present in single-investigator driven research, investigators participating in interdisciplinary projects could slow their career progress. These traditional measures include serving as the principal investigator on federal research grants and primary authorship on scientific papers. In fact, a recent study showed that scientists engaging in interdisciplinary projects were disproportionately graduate students, many of whom perceived their participation as being professionally risky in the long run (Rhoten and Parker 2004).
The expectation is that the new policy will acknowledge the contributions of PIs from multiple disciplines and provide formal recognition of shared project leadership. While this is a positive step at the federal level, it is also important that individual institutions move toward this kind of recognition when awarding tenure and considering promotions. According to the RBM Project description, “universities depend significantly on federal data sources for information about their own faculty’s participation in federally funded research,” making this an important step in the process.
While the details of the policy and its implementation have yet to be finalized, a working group composed of representatives from the federal grant making agencies will soon meet to work out the details.
Reference
1. Rhoten, D. and Parker, A. “Education. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path.” Science 306(5704): 2046, 2004.