On April 28, 2005, Congress passed an FY 2006 budget resolution that will hold domestic discretionary spending to $843 billion. The blueprint for spending also assumes an overall 1% cut in funding available for non-defense, non-homeland security programs, including federally funded scientific research. Consequently, there are great concerns about funding prospects for the fiscal year that will begin this October 1.
Once the budget is in place, the next step in the process is for the House and Senate Appropriations Commit-tees to draft spending legislation for the federal agencies and programs within their purview. A new wrinkle this year is the fact that while both the House and the Senate reorganized the Appropriations Subcommittees, the House ended up with 10 subcommittees, while the Senate ended up with 12. This is expected to create further complications when it is necessary to produce final versions of the spending legislation.
Each year, APS submits to the Appropriations Subcommittees the Society’s recommendations concerning funding levels for biomedical research programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science
Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These recommendations are developed in conjunction with FASEB, the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding, and other advocacy organizations. The testimony itself includes justification based on examples of successful research endeavors.
NIH
The following is an excerpt from testimony submitted to the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. See link to full testimony below.
“The recently completed doubling of the NIH budget has allowed the agency to expand and take on a variety of existing and emerging challenges in biomedical science. Invest-ment in the basic and applied sciences plays an important role in the continued health and prosperity of our nation, and increased NIH funding has allowed researchers to explore science on a new scale. In order to build on existing knowledge and develop new technologies, NIH funding must continue to support the biomedical research enterprise. Faltering levels of funding, such as the 0.7% increase recommended by the administration, will discourage the best and brightest minds from pursuing careers in the sciences, and will hamper the efforts of researchers already at work.
“The NIH operates on a scale that permits it to look broadly at areas of biomedical research that need attention. The NIH maintains a diverse portfolio of research activities ranging from research on common diseases with obvious public health implications to basic science studies that contribute to a body of knowledge whose application can only be determined over time. Physiology provides the foundation upon which translational research builds, ultimately working towards therapies and prevention strategies.
“The NIH plays many critical roles in advancing biomedical research. The NIH provides opportunities for individual researchers at universities and medical schools throughout the country to compete for research funds based upon the scientific merit of their ideas. NIH also carries out other functions including:
- sponsoring research training opportunities for young scientists and physicians;
- funding major collaborative initiatives that bring together multiple institutions with diverse resources;
- providing the public with up-to-date information about the latest research on various diseases and health conditions through individual institutes and online resources such as MedLine Plus and
ClinicalTrials.gov;
- supporting unique science education programs, particularly for underserved minority students; and
- funding innovative research through the NIH Roadmap initiative.
“The APS joins the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding in urging that NIH be provided with a 6% funding increase in FY 2006 to permit the agency to maintain its current wide-ranging and important research efforts. This forward-looking approach to our nation’s biomedical research efforts is much to be preferred over the administration’s proposed increase of 0.7%, which would force the NIH to contract its research portfolio, thus leaving many important projects unfunded.”
(http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/fy06-nih.htm).
NSF and NASA
Testimony for the NSF and NASA was submitted in the form of a letter to all members of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science.
In support of NSF funding, APS stated that “the basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry, exploring questions that might seem to lack immediate practical application. In fact, the relevance of the knowledge gained will only become apparent over time.” The APS also expressed support for education initiatives at NSF, drawing attention to recent budget cuts and pointing out that NSF as a science agency is uniquely qualified to foster excellence in science and math education. The APS joined FASEB and the Coalition for National Science Funding in recommending the NSF budget be increased to at least $6 billion in FY 2006, and pointed out that the administration recommendation of a $5.61 billion budget falls short of 2004 funding levels.
In support of funding for NASA, APS pointed to the profound physiological stress caused by long-term space flight and the need to conduct more research into the biomedical challenges of manned space exploration. The APS expressed concern that while the overall budget for NASA is slated to increase, the proposed allocation for Human Systems Research and Technology theme of $806.5 million represents a decrease of nearly 20% from the previous year. The APS joined FASEB in urging increased support for peer-reviewed research into the health risks of long-term space flight and development of appropriate countermeasures.
For full text of the letter on NSF and NASA appropriations, go to: http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/nsf-nasa06.htm.
VA
Testimony for the VA was submitted in the form of a letter to all members of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.
The American Physiological Society thanked the members for their ongoing support of Medical and Prosthetic Research at the VA, and pointed out that “research that specifically addresses the medical needs of veterans is an important component of VA health care.” The APS further stated that the “VA medical research facilities across the country provide veterans access to state-of-the-art medical care” and that “in addition to focusing on research and patient care, VA medical researchers also spend time educating the next generations of
physician-scientists.” The APS joined FASEB and the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research in calling for an increase in the VA medical and prosthetic research to $460 million for FY 2006, with an additional $45 million to be spent on facilities and major equipment.
To read the full letter submitted in support of VA funding, go to: http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/va06funding.htm. |
|
Developing and Implementing a Communications Strategy:
IUPS 2005 Symposium Summary
Hannah Carey, Univ. of Wisconsin, Veterinary School
Hannah Carey, chair of the APS Communications Committee, began the discussion by addressing why physiologist scientists need to communicate science to the public.
Scientists have learned how to communicate through scientific means. But there is an underlying responsibility—to explain research to taxpayers, to educate young people and the general public, to be proactive in order to increase funding for science. It can also be fun to communicate the interesting things that you do.
Scientists can learn how to communicate effectively from professionals who promote biomedical research issues on a regular basis. The APS Communications Committee invited a panel that included a print journalist and representatives from a state biomedical research organization, an institutional PR department, and a professional scientific society. They discussed how news is made and how to best communicate with the general public.
Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times
Rosie Mestel is a science and medical reporter at the Los Angeles Times. She became a science writer after receiving her PhD in genetics. She now writes on everything from Alfred Kinsey to Terri Schiavo to science briefs that come across the newswire. Mestel is one of eight science writers at her paper.
To decide what issues to cover, newspapers sift through all the emails, news nuggets and press releases that they receive daily. The
L.A. Times has no science page, so they tend to look first at widely applicable science stories that are obviously breaking news (new drugs in clinical trials, immediate health threats, newly discovered remedies for common medical problems, etc.). Research either gets written up as a daily news story or is pitched to ‘Page 1’ as a larger news piece. While they consider some basic research stories, items that are too incremental can be rejected. But if the research is very interesting, it is held over to be included in a feature piece. The Times also likes interesting and “cool” stories as well as those based on “weird phenomena.”
Some stories grow to encompass much more than the original headline. For example, a story about hormone replacement therapy began as the result of a study that linked its use to heart disease. The final article addressed other issues including why so many women had been prescribed this therapy, and the specifics of how hormone replacement works in the body.
So what should you do if you think your research is of interest to the media/general public?
Let your press office know beforehand. Science news must be current and these media professionals can help get your research media-ready before the article is published.
Make yourself available as a source. Press releases are intended to provide the basics of your study, but the fundamentals need to be explained and you should be available to tell the story. Your availability can make or break an article.
Be prepared to talk to the reporter for a while. Even if it ends up being a short piece, the journalist wants to understand it. Reporters also go back to scientists who can explain things clearly.
Avoid jargon, but don’t dumb it down.
Speak expressively to add color to the piece. Additionally, keep the visual aspects of your work in mind. If there is something particularly interesting to look at, consider inviting the reporter to your lab to see science for him/herself, or offer a photo.
Gale Davy, Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research Education (WABRE)
Gale Davy is the Executive Director of WABRE, one of the 15 state biomedical research organizations that comprise SUBR (States United for Biomedical Research). WABRE was first established in response to the animal rights movement in Wisconsin. WABRE’s mission is to educate the public about the role that biomedical research plays in their lives; represent the biomedical research community in Wisconsin; and promote excellence in science education.
Davy emphasized the vital role communication plays in scientific research. Ineffective communication of science comes at a great cost—measured in loss of actual dollars devoted to research and in fewer scientific and medical advances that benefit the public. There is also a psychological cost and a loss of pride for scientists. Scientists have to communicate to build public support, political support, and create a productive regulatory environment.
Communicating is fundamentally an exercise in storytelling. It is telling the story of you, your work, your field and its impact. We need to humanize scientists because opponents dehumanize science based on a “higher morality.” Our greatest defense is good science and good people.
When talking about your research, think about to whom you are speaking. Oftentimes, your audience dictates how you relate your message. What do they know? What do they care about? Relate your research to them in terms they understand.
In communications, it’s far more important that people like you than understand you (think: politicians). Public relations is less about knowledge and more about likeability.
Protect yourself, your colleagues and science, by communicating face to face. Join a political party and support it. Meet candidates and other politicians and get face time with them. Go to political fundraisers. The public and the policymakers want to know about your work.
WABRE and other SUBR organizations can help you understand how to form your message, find your audience, outreach to people, and follow-up. Scientists should support the SUBR organization in their state and consider becoming active in its leadership. If none currently exists in your area, you can contact Davy or visit the SUBR website
(http://www.statesforbiomed.org/) about setting up a SUBR organization near you.
Robert Nellis, Mayo Clinic Communications
Very few papers have science pages anymore. Many publications do not see the interest in a full spread devoted to basic science. The focus today is on issues like healthcare (exercise, diet), technology, space, dinosaurs, etc. Media is now “narrowcasting” instead of “broadcasting.” Stories are more specialized, but this may provide you with a better chance of getting your story into print.
When preparing to put your research out to the public, consider the following:
Questions to Ask: Is my research newsworthy? Does it have widespread implications to the general public? Am I being sufficiently clear? Am I alerting people that can help with dissemination soon enough? Will I be around to respond?
Newsworthiness: Avoid preliminary or incremental findings. Your research must be seen as having an impact on the public. Will the general population be impacted directly? Will your science affect their pocketbook, cure their children, or go into clinical trials within the next two to three years? Is it of interest to specialty media?
Clarity: Avoid jargon; speak in clear and common terms. Explain the “so what?” Use analogies to explain a concept or your research if possible. Develop key messages and repeat them.
Find your own 30-second sound byte by imagining that you are in an elevator with a reporter. If you could say three things during the ride that you wouldn’t want them to forget, what would they be? These points should be the basis of your message and should go into your 30-second research summary.
Timing: Public relations people often work with a number of research papers simultaneously, so it is important that you give them enough time to adequately help you develop your press release. Inform communications staff in time for them to prepare. Ideally, this is as soon as your paper is accepted, but it should be at least two weeks before embargo lifts.
Availability: Remember that the press release is not meant to tell the whole research story. It’s a teaser to get journalists interested and to encourage them to interview you. Therefore, you must be available to speak with them once the release is distributed. Be around to answer questions. Work with media staff in your institution for easy access. Free your schedule for one news cycle. Respond promptly to reporters. If a journalist can’t get in touch with you before their deadline, they will likely opt not to write your story at all.
Limited Resources: If you don’t have access to an institutional press office, that doesn’t mean you should give up trying to get the word out about your research. Start even earlier, write your own lay summary and talking points, keep visuals in mind, and get outside help. You can contact your local society for biomedical research, your professional membership organization, or you can hire a freelancer.
Realistic Expectations: Don’t expect the L.A. Times or N.Y. Times every time. Sometimes, reporters (especially at the bigger papers) just won’t care. It’s a crowded marketplace and not every story can be written up. But regardless, just keep trying! That is the most important thing.
Bottom line: It is in both the reporter’s and your best interests to communicate science effectively. Meet them halfway!
Mayer Resnick, APS Communications
APS was founded in 1887 to foster education, facilitate research, and promote physiology. The Society initiated the Communications Office to help reach these goals. Along with publicizing the research, APS also performs media outreach for issues like public access, the use of animals in research, outstanding scientists who have been honored for their research, and educational programs for students and teachers.
The public focuses on the media as a source for information, which is why it is a good vehicle for disseminating research. But there is stiff competition for content. For example, United Press International (UPI) receives 250 press releases a day. APS distributes about five releases per month. Science has to be both timely and interesting to get attention.
The Communications Office gets most of its highlighted research from articles published in its journals and scientific meetings. Individual scientists can also contribute research to be publicized. Scientists should notify APS of their fascinating research early. Since APS represents many areas of physiological research, the sooner you contact the Society, the easier it is to get your science considered. This also provides APS extra time to contact your institution and get any necessary clearances out of the way before time to release your research.
Remember that sometimes, no matter how much time you spend working with a reporter, the story won’t always come out the way you had intended, but it’s still important to try to get the information out and to educate the public about physiology and science in general. You have gotten some experience and have hopefully established yourself as a good source.
Hannah Carey, Univ. of Wisconsin, Veterinary School
In conclusion, physiologists should spend the time and effort needed to communicate interesting aspects of their research to the public. Talk it up. Making the effort, even if nothing comes from it, is worth it and it’s easy if you love what you do.
*The complete summary (including Q&A recap and handouts) is available at
http://www.the-aps.org/press/conference/eb05/symposium05.htm. |
