 |
|
Dale Benos |
I am truly honored to be the 79th president
of the American Physiological Society (APS). I cannot but be awed by
examining the list of previous occupants of this office. Moreover, I have
had the very good fortune of interacting with many of these esteemed
individuals (more of them than I care to admit). In fact, I trained with two
former Presidents, Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen and Daniel Tosteson. It was from
these two individuals that I first learned to love physiology and the APS.
They instilled in me the appreciation of the wonder of science—and its
attendant responsibilities. To them, I am forever grateful. I must say that
in my 24 years as a member of the APS, this confidence and enthusiasm for
science, particularly physiology, have been continually reinforced and
renewed by my fellow APS colleagues. This is precisely why I am really
excited about the future: the future of physiology, the future of science,
and the future of the APS.
The APS is a great Society. From its small beginnings in 1887 (there were
only 27 founding members), the Society has grown to over 10,500 members
today. The primary mission of the APS is to enhance the ability of all life
scientists (not only physiologists) to improve the health and well being of
society. This is accomplished through its research and educational programs.
The Society is diverse with respect to the different disciplines represented
by its members, and this diversity is good because it provides a fertile
environment for productive collaboration and interchange. Throughout its
history, the APS has been at the forefront of scientific publication,
education, the ethics of human and animal experimentation, and public
policy. The APS is blessed with a truly exceptional band of senior managers
and an outstanding executive director. The 70+ member staff is equally
committed to making the organization run smoothly and effectively. The APS
is also diverse in its membership, diverse with respect to discipline,
gender, culture, and geography. After all, it is the members who constitute
and define the Society. But there is much more to do. The Membership
Committee does an outstanding job of advertising and canvassing scientific
communities for new members, but member attrition, especially among
students, is unacceptably high. As President, I call upon you to serve the
Society by helping reverse this trend. Moreover, I call upon you to serve
the Society in other ways that I will outline below. I would like to make
member activism the defining phrase of my year as APS President.
Science in general and physiology in particular are at a crossroads. Never
before in history have scientists possessed the tools to address so many
sophisticated and important questions. But with this sophistication come
incredible costs, both in terms of time and money. Moreover, our academic
institutions have leveraged federal funds to such an extent that the
financial structure of many universities is tenuous at best. Scores of
junior scientists are at risk of losing their jobs because of uncertainties
in extramural funding. This problem exists in spite of the fact that in 2003
the NIH realized a five-year plan doubling of its budget to nearly $29
billion. The situation is even bleaker for physiologists. After the
completion of the doubling period, the percentage “market share” of
extramural funds secured by scientists in physiology departments actually
decreased (see the article entitled “NIH Funding Trends in Physiology” in
this issue of The Physiologist).
Science is clearly under pressure. The outlook for federal funding is grim.
On top of the increasing cost of doing sophisticated research, we are
affected by broad economic factors such as rising fuel costs. The Federal
deficit is growing, and both Congress and the Administration have signaled
an unwillingness to provide NIH with further increases. The current furor
over research with human embryonic stem cells and teaching Intelligent
Design as an alternative to evolution can be seen at least in part as
indicators that many people lack basic scientific literacy and may even be
antagonistic toward science - including some of our political leaders. It is
paradoxical that scientists are viewed with suspicion and distrust on these
issues even though according to Research!America and the 2004 National
Science Board Science and Technology Indicators (http://nsf.gov/nsb),
science as an occupation is rated highly in terms of respect and necessity.
What then is the reason for the controversy, and why in hard economic times
should nonscientists want to see scarce tax dollars diverted to support what
may be construed as a luxury? This is a fair question, and one that every
physiologist should be prepared to answer, just as we should also be
prepared to discuss controversies in science. It is incumbent upon us to
explain to our non-science friends why we do what we do, why scientific
research is necessary for the well-being of humanity, and especially to
listen to their concerns. After all, our friends and neighbors are
ultimately the ones who support our work. Consequently, I ask each of you to
make a concerted effort to speak about what you do to your local community.
Volunteer to speak to local civic organizations such as the Lions and Rotary
Clubs, local school board, PTAs, or Chambers of Commerce about issues of
science that directly impact their daily lives. To help in this regard, I
have asked our Communications Committee to assemble a PowerPoint template on
“What has Science Done for Me Lately” that our members can download and
adapt for use in these venues. There are other PowerPoint templates
available for download as well: “What is a Physiologist” and “Scientific
Societies and the Scientist: What Do They Do for Each Other?” [http://www.the-aps.org/education/undergrad/outreach.html]
Utilize these tools and make yourself available to your community.
The benefits of 10,500 APS members doing outreach of this sort could be
enormous. First, you will help educate lay people about the necessity and
importance of science in everyday life. This in turn will sensitize people
to science issues at the local, state, and national levels. They may become
more amenable to writing letters making their opinions known to their
elected representatives at all levels of government. Second, your
willingness to speak openly to people will help break down the ‘ivory tower’
concept that has plagued and isolated scientists throughout history. Third,
you might shatter the old nerd stereotype and convince your friends and
neighbors that scientists are people trying to make the world a better
place. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Bush called for
increased funding for the physical sciences and alternative energy sources,
which is one of the administration’s priorities for the FY 2007 budget. At
the same time, there was a notable absence of any increase for biomedical
research, with the NIH budget held flat. Many in government feel that with
the doubling of the NIH budget completed, their obligation is fulfilled and
biomedical scientists should be both grateful and satisfied. However, as we
know very well, with funding rates trending downward, not only will our
opportunities to understand human systems and disease be eroded, we are also
jeopardizing our future ability to deliver outstanding health care. It is
essential that we as scientists act to reverse this shortsighted notion of
“adequate” funding support for biomedical sciences. As physiologists and as
life scientists, our Society should take a lead role in this effort, and
there is no better place to start than at the local level. As Michael
Crichton so eloquently put it, “Science is the most exciting and sustained
enterprise of discovery in the history of our species…It’s time to assume
your power, and shoulder your responsibility to get your message to the
waiting world. It’s nobody’s job but yours. And nobody can do it as well as
you can.” (Science 283:1461-1463, 1999).
In addition to the communications strategies outlined above, another area
where APS members, particularly those associated with one of our twelve
disciplinary sections, and especially our young investigators, can become
active is in the arena of public policy and science advocacy. Needless to
say, funding has become a major concern. As I pointed out above, advocacy in
your local communities is essential because ultimately it is the community
that elects officials who in turn vote on funding for science. Letter
writing is also extremely effective. It is clear that members of Congress
appreciate and react to letters written from scientists about funding, about
science-related legislation, and other matters of concern. Science policy
alerts emanate from both the APS and FASEB; please pay attention to these
calls for letters because they do make a difference. Also, if you will be in
Washington and want to visit your Representative and Senators, the APS
public affairs staff will be happy to advise you on how to set up an
appointment and what to expect. On a more personal note, decisions made in
Congress and at the NIH directly affect our laboratory work. Consider all of
the issues surrounding animal and human experimentation, effort reporting,
and other compliance and regulatory requirements. These items consume an
inordinate amount of time, time that can be better spent thinking about and
doing science. I urge you to get involved to effect change. The APS will
help coordinate such efforts and organize a more effective network for
members to participate in such activities. Stay tuned!
To even get further down and dirty, all of us spend a huge amount of time
writing grants, asking for money to do our work. The primary source of funds
for many APS members is the NIH. According to a recent article by Emily
Singer (http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech-Therapeutics/wtr_16208,259,pl.html),
in the last three years (2004-2006) NIH funding has not even kept up with
inflation. In fact, in fiscal year 2006, NIH appropriations were cut—the
first reduction experienced since 1970. In the three years since the NIH
budget doubling was concluded, the “purchasing power” of the NIH has actually
decreased by 10%! Singer predicts that the biomedical science community
should anticipate that only one in ten grant applications will be funded.
Moreover, as you are all aware, there has been a massive reorganization of
the study sections (or initial review groups). With the disappearance of
study sections like the Physiology Study Section, the Cell Biology and
Physiology Study Section, and the Lung Biology and Pathology Study Section
and the appearance of study sections like Integrative Physiology of Obesity
and Diabetes Study Section, Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Study
Section, and Pathobiology of Kidney Disease Study Section, it is clear that
emphasis is being placed on more disease-related, translational-type
research. Are we as a Society positioned for these changes?
To explore further the funding situation for physiology researchers, I
selected 37 out of the 181 regular study sections that are currently
chartered by the NIH, and evaluated a) the percentage of regular members
that are housed in departments in which ‘physiology’ appears in the name,
and b) the percentage of regular study section members that belong to the
APS. I was biased in my selection of the study sections, choosing to examine
those most likely to review grants submitted by physiologists (e.g.,
cardiovascular, renal, endocrine, transport, exercise, gastrointestinal,
pulmonary, and neural). Of the total number of listed regular members (657)
in these 37 study sections, 11% belong to a physiology department, and only
18% are members of the APS. Obviously, our membership can participate more
in these activities. This is an area in which each APS section can take a
proactive role. The sections should identify study sections and institutes
where their particular constituency receives their funding, and develop a
strong relationship with the institute director, individual program
directors, and scientific review administrators. In this way, strong ties
can be established and a formal mechanism can be in place within each
section to suggest APS members to serve on these review groups. The
Cardiovascular Section has such a system in place, and should be consulted
by other sections to see how they have organized this process.
Several years ago, President John Hall initiated a Translational initiative
within the Society in anticipation of these changes. Nearly 30% of our
membership holds the MD degree. The APS needs to promote better interaction
between its basic science members and their clinical colleagues. This can be
accomplished through publications (there still is a Translational Research
category for articles) and meetings. It is difficult to attract many
clinical scientists, especially those living outside of the United States,
to Experimental Biology because of the plethora of large specialty meetings
(e.g., American Thoracic Society meeting, American Society of Nephrology
meeting, The American Society of Gastroenterology meeting, and the Endocrine
Society meeting, to name a few). The APS nonetheless has made efforts in
this regard through our meetings and symposia, but more needs to be done.
Joint sponsorship of symposia at these other meetings has started, but needs
to be expanded. The APS has a conference program that can and should be used
for such translational initiatives. This is an area where the membership can
again make a difference, namely, by working with the Joint Programming
Committee of the Society to develop new symposia and conferences to address
this very important area.
One of the tremendous assets of the APS is its willingness, particularly in
the last 20 years, to call ‘time out’ and ask itself, “What do we do well;
what don’t we do well; what can we do better, and what should we be doing?”
This self analysis has resulted in the establishment of three new journals (Advances
in Physiology Education, AJP-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology,
Physiological Genomics), a transformation of NIPS to
Physiology, a greater reliance on the sections in the governance and
meetings of the Society, more member benefits, an expansion of the APS
educational programs, a revamping of its meetings, and a proactive stance in
animal welfare, compliance, and ethical issues. The Society has always been
at the forefront of publications, being one of the early adopters of online
journal publication. It was also a founding member of the DC Principles
Coalition, a group of societal and university press publishers who have
developed economically sustainable ways of providing access to electronic
publications without shifting costs to scientists and, ultimately, to their
funding agencies. APS has also taken a leadership role in developing an
electronic publication archiving system, called LOCKSS (“Lots of Copies
Keeps Stuff Safe”) and CLOCKSS (Controlled LockSS), respectively. APS
members should be proud of their Society’s leadership role in these areas.
In 2004, the APS was awarded the prestigious Presidential Award for
Excellence in Science and Engineering Mentoring for its groundbreaking
efforts in minority science education. The education department has on-going
active programs for summer training of undergraduate and high school
students and high school teachers. This department in conjunction with
Publications, through NIH funding, has developed a Professional Skills
Workshop on writing and reviewing manuscripts. The first workshop was held
in January 2006 in Orlando with an enrollment of 40 students. A second
workshop will be held in Denver this May. Eventually, all of these materials
will be transformed into a web-based course. In the future, these workshops
will be expanded to include other topics such as Communication Skills for
Oral and Poster Presentations and Career Planning and Management. The hope
is that not only will the students learn from the workshop, but the
instructors will go on to develop similar courses at their home
institutions. Another recent project undertaken by the Animal Care and Use
Committee in collaboration with the EEP section is the publication of a
Resource Book for the Design of Animal Exercise Protocols. It should be
noted that the synergy between all of the APS departments has been
impressive, and is a model for how an effective society should operate.
In 2005 the APS held a strategic planning retreat. Planning began with a
member needs survey that was made available via email to all regular
members. Nearly 1,800 members participated, and the results are reported in
this issue of The Physiologist. Survey respondents suggested a number of
future directions the Society should take: strengthen public policy
advocacy; enhance undergraduate physiology education programs; develop new
programs to attract and retain young scientists; integrate international
scientists better into the APS; bridge industry with research and clinical
practice; promote women and minorities in physiology; and continue to build
top-notch journals. Sixty APS leaders met in Houston in late October 2005 to
refine these ideas. Five major themes emerged: 1) APS will be the leader in
the advancement of the life sciences that investigate biological function;
2) APS will be a compelling and vital home for young scientists and will
provide a sustained commitment to them throughout all stages of their
careers; 3) APS will drive the understanding of and appreciation for
physiology and strengthen public and private support; 4) APS will be dynamic
and relevant to an increasingly diverse and global membership; and 5) APS
will be a mission-directed, adaptable, and fiscally sound organization.
Council will meet again at the end of February to determine specific plans
to accomplish these goals, including the creation of multiple task forces to
take on the responsibility to ensure success. Some of you may be called upon
to serve on these task forces. One major effort during my presidential year
will be to begin implementing action plans from this strategic planning
initiative.
Every person should ask the question: why do I belong to the APS? Why does
APS exist? The standard mantra is that the APS exists to promote the
physiological sciences. What precisely does this mean? Surely the Society
publishes journals, surely the Society organizes meetings, surely the
Society educates teachers and students, and surely the Society advocates
sound science policy. On one level, the APS exists to merge these activities
in an organized and efficient fashion. But is that all? Is there anything
deeper?
Why are you a member of the APS? Is it to associate with fellow scientists
with like interests? Is it to access information concerning your own sub
discipline? Is it to receive the complete on-line collection of APS
journals, and discounts on other publications? Is it to receive free color
when publishing your own work? Is it to be eligible for member registration
rates at Society meetings? Or is it to promote the discovery and
dissemination of acquired knowledge to the scientific and lay communities?
The first five questions view you, the individual scientist, as passive
receivers of APS benefits. The last question views you, the individual
scientist, as an active participant in the activities of the Society. I
challenge each of you, especially the students, to redouble your commitment
to the APS. In turn, you will be rewarded with more benefits. More
importantly, you will realize great personal gain and satisfaction in making
a real difference for the APS and the physiological sciences. I stand ready
to lead and assist you in your efforts.
I would like to acknowledge several individuals for helpful discussions and
for their comments on preliminary drafts of this article: Martin Frank,
Catherine Fuller, Cathleen Guy, Rebecca Osthus, Alice Ra’anan, and Margaret
Reich.
|
