|
Public Affairs |
|
FY 2006 Funding Outlook
|
|
The appropriations process for Fiscal Year
2006 (FY ‘06) was off to a good start early this summer with the House of
Representatives finishing all of its spending bills before the August
Congressional recess. However, the Senate appropriations committee was able
to complete only five of twelve bills. Given other Congressional priorities,
it is unlikely that the budget process will be complete before the new
fiscal year begins October 1. In fact, some observers are already predicting
that several of the Senate bills may never reach the Senate floor and will
instead be combined into an omnibus bill. See below for House and Senate proposed budgets for biomedical research. NIH The Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education has recommended an increase of $1 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would raise the budget to $29.6 billion, or 3.7% over the FY ‘05 funding levels. In contrast, the House of Representatives allocated only an additional $138 million to the agency, 0.5% over last year’s level. An increase as low as 0.5% would fall far below the projected rate of biomedical inflation (3.2%) and is predicted to cause a loss of approximately 402 research project grants. The Senate provided the NIH with a larger increase by performing some accounting maneuvers that allowed it to work with an additional $2.7 billion. The significant difference between the NIH budgets proposed by the two committees means that the numbers will have to be reconciled in conference when the two chambers come together to develop final versions of spending bills, and where it is unlikely that the House will agree to the accounting gimmicks used by the Senate. NSF The National Science Foundation (NSF), which suffered significant cuts in the FY ‘05, has also received different budget numbers from House and Senate appropriators. The House provided a $171 million increase over last year’s budget, bringing the NSF budget to $5.6 billion, a 3.1% increase. The Senate came up with a smaller increase of $58 million (1.1% over FY ‘05). Particularly hard hit in this year’s budget are the education programs at NSF, and the money added back by the House was intended to restore some of the education funds. As with the NIH, these differences will have to be worked out in conference. NASA As NASA moves forward with the space shuttle program and the moon-Mars initiatives, Congress has provided the agency with increased funding. The House added $275 million to last year’s budget for a total of $16.471 billion, while the Senate added $200 million. Despite the overall increase for the agency, Human Systems research is slated to be cut to $800 million, down from $925 million in the last fiscal year. Veterans’ Affairs Both the House and the Senate have allocated $393 million for medical and prosthetic research at the VA, down from $402 million in FY ‘05. Moreover, the House included language recommending that 20% of the research budget be focused on mental health research, which would be a sharp increase from the 7% currently being spent. FASEB sent letters to Senators Feinstein and Hutchison, who lead the military construction and veterans’ affairs appropriations subcommittee, endorsing the need for mental health research but calling for the addition of funds to avoid cuts in other programs. |
|
|
|
|
On July 19, 2005, the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing to discuss reauthorization of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). All federal agencies require periodic
Congressional authorization so that lawmakers can provide guidance and
oversight, as well as to set funding levels. Authorization of the NIH falls
under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce committee in the House of
Representatives, and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee in the
Senate. Although Congress should reauthorize the NIH regularly (every two
years), the agency does not require reauthorization in order to function, and
the agency was last reauthorized in 1993. In the absence of a reauthorization
bill, appropriators in Congress often include authorizing language in the yearly
spending bills for the agency. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, led by Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) is looking to reassert its authority over the NIH and has circulated a draft reauthorization bill. The draft bill was discussed at the July 19 hearing at which Elias Zerhouni, NIH director, was the only witness. Outlined below are some of the more significant items contained in the first draft of the bill. Structural Reorganization The draft bill divides the agency’s many institutes and centers (ICs) into two broad categories: those that are mission specific and those that are science enabling. Mission specific ICs are those associated with a specific disease, organ or life stage. Among the 15 ICs in this category are the NHLBI, NIAID and NIDDK. Science enabling ICs are those that conduct basic science and training activities, those that deal with emerging disciplines, crosscutting issues and clinical and translational activities. NIGMS, NHGRI and NLM are among the nine ICs that fall into this category. The bill limits the total number of ICs to the current 15 mission specific and nine science enabling, and contains a number of provisions outlining the procedures for reorganizing, creating and abolishing ICs. In addition to categorizing the ICs, the reauthorization would define four main entities within the NIH: the Office of the Director (OD), a newly created Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), the mission specific institutes and the science enabling institutes. The main purpose of the DPCPSI would be to coordinate trans-NIH activities and through this division, the director to have grant-making authority. Director’s Authority The bill outlines the authority of the NIH Director to include responsibility for program coordination, priority setting, and strategic planning for all research activities conducted or supported by NIH. The bill specifies that the Director will have an Advisory Council to provide advice on matters of research and policy. Currently the NIH director has the authority to use 1% of the total NIH budget to conduct trans-NIH activities. Under the new bill, the director’s transfer authority would increase, and while the draft bill did not specify that percentage, Zerhouni testified at the hearing that 5% would be an appropriate starting point. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine from its 2003 report on organizational changes at NIH. Appropriations Under the current version of the reauthorization bill, Congress would specify the budgets of only the four entities listed above. This would be a change from the current system where Congress provides a specific dollar amount for each IC. In order to ensure some stability in the budgets, the committee may specify a minimum amount that each IC should receive. In addition to changing the way Congress funds the NIH on a yearly basis, there has been discussion of placing a ceiling on the overall budget growth of the agency over the next several years. Reporting Requirements The reauthorization bill directs NIH to develop an electronic system to code grants, which would also provide information on associated patents and publications. The bill eliminates some of the present reporting requirements and mandates a biennial report to Congress on the state of biomedical research, complete with a strategic plan and a catalog of research activities organized by specific disease categories. In addition to the changes described above, the NIH reauthorization bill establishes two new demonstration programs: Bridging the Sciences, and High Risk, High Reward Research. Bridging the Sciences would allow the NIH director to make grants in consultation with the NSF and DOE to fund research at the interface of biological and physical, chemical, mathematical and computational sciences. The High Risk, High Reward Research program would provide funding for high-impact innovative research and encourage public-private partnerships. Both of these grant programs would require peer review. Taken together, the changes included in the reauthorization bill are intended to allow the agency to have more flexibility to respond to changing and emerging needs in public health. In the past, NIH reauthorization has been stalled due to numerous and sometimes controversial additions to the bill by Members of Congress. The success of this bill will depend in part on whether Chairman Barton can maintain this as a “clean” bill. However, while NIH reauthorization has been a priority for Chairman Barton’s House Energy and Commerce committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has yet to take up the measure. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) is pleased to welcome the Association of American
Physicians (AAP) into the Federation. In commenting on the decision, FASEB
President Bruce Bistrian, said, “It is a great honor to welcome the
distinguished members of AAP to FASEB.” The FASEB Board voted on June 14, 2005,
to accept AAP as the 23rd member society in the coalition. AAP was founded in 1885 by seven physicians and now has 1,000 active members. The goals of its members include the pursuit of medical knowledge and the advancement of knowledge through experimentation and discovery of basic and clinical science and the application to clinical medicine. Each year, 55 individuals who have attained excellence in achieving these goals are recognized through nomination for membership. The current president of AAP is Jerrold M. Olefsky, Professor of Medicine, at the University of California, San Diego. “The Association of American Physicians is pleased to join other biomedical science research groups in working with FASEB to increase public awareness of the need for maintaining strong support for biomedical research and education in these times of unparalleled opportunity for enhancing human health,” said Olefsky. FASEB is composed of 23 societies with more than 65,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. FASEB’s mission is to enhance the ability of biomedical and life scientists to improve—through their research—the health, well-being and productivity of all people. FASEB serves the interests of these scientists in those areas related to public policy, facilitates coalition activities among Member Societies and disseminates information on biological research through scientific conferences and publications. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the eighth consecutive year, APS will sponsor
an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Mass Media Science
and Engineering Fellow for summer 2006. Applications are due to the AAAS by
January 15, 2006. 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.aaas.org/programs/education/MassMedia/apply.shtml. Additional fellowships are available for students in other http://www.aaas.org/programs/education/MassMedia/apply.shtmlscientific 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, contact Mayer Resnick in the APS Communications Office. (Telephone: 301-634-7209; Email: mresnick@the-aps.org). |
|
|
|
|
|
www.physiologyINFO.org Provides a Public Window Into Biomedical Research |
|
|
In September, the American Physiological Society
launched http://www.physiologyINFO.org,
a new website aimed at informing and educating the general public about
physiology. The site, geared specifically toward non-scientists, provides
current information about advances in physiology.
http://www.PhysiologyINFO.org will
not only help people recognize the word “physiology,” but it will also increase
understanding of what physiologists do, and establish the discipline (in the
eyes of the public) as one upon which most other biomedical sciences are based.
Spearheaded by the Communications Committee under its first chair, Andrea Gwosdow, http://www.PhysiologyINFO.org pulls together resources developed with the general public in mind. Included are Education, Public Affairs, Publications, Careers and Communications materials that discuss physiology in everyday terms. Additionally, it provides interesting physiological facts and contextualizes the diverse contributions that physiologists have made throughout the history of medicine. “This initiative will help put a public face on our discipline, and encourage more interactions between APS members and the public that supports our research,” said Hannah Carey, current chair of the Communications Committee. Among the available resources:
With the launch of this site, APS continues
toward its goal of making communicating science to the public a priority. It is
intended to be both an educational resource for students and teachers, and an
informational resource for taxpayers whose dollars and support fund scientific
research. Design and editorial coordination was led by Communications Specialist
Stacy Brooks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Index] [The “Animal Rights” Movement’s Cruelty to Humans] [The Walter C. Randall Lecture and an Agenda for Ethics] [APS News] [APS Conference] [Membership] [APS Committee Reports] [Experimental Biology 2006 Program] [Positions Available] [Senior Physiologists’ News] [Books Received] [People & Places] [Announcements] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses] |
