|
APS Submits Testimony on Funding for Federal Science
Agencies
The overriding theme in Congressional efforts to shape the fiscal year
(FY) 2007 budget is an effort to reduce the federal deficit by limiting
all discretionary spending, including funding for biomedical and
scientific research. The funding cuts this would entail have proved
divisive, and the House adjourned for its Easter recess without passing a
budget resolution. It is not clear whether the House will continue trying
to approve a budget or proceed to the next step in the process without a
formal agreement on spending. If there is a budget resolution, many fear
that it will set limits on spending that will make it extremely difficult
to provide increases for federal research programs. To stave off this
scenario, FASEB and other advocacy organizations have been working hard
with allies in Congress to build support for raising the overall budget
level to allow for increases in research and other vital programs.
The first step in the budget process is to provide spending targets under
broad categories such as science, health, education, and defense. The next
step is for Appropriations subcommittees in both houses of Congress to set
actual funding levels for the individual federal agencies. Each year, the
American Physiological Society (APS) makes recommendations for funding of
the federal science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and Veterans Affairs (VA). These
recommendations are developed in conjunction with other advocacy
organizations including FASEB and the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research
Funding, and are submitted to Congressional appropriators in the form of
written testimony.
The following are excerpts from testimony submitted to the House of
Representatives Appropriations subcommittees. Links to the full text are
provided. Excerpts from APS recommendations concerning VA medical research
will appear in the August edition of The Physiologist.
NIH
"The doubling of the agency budget that took place between fiscal years
1996 and 2002 allowed the NIH to expand its efforts to address old and new
challenges in biomedical science. Our nation's investment in basic,
translational, and clinical research plays an important role in the
continued health and prosperity of our people. Increases in NIH funding
have allowed researchers to explore scientific opportunities on an
unprecedented scale. However, to build on existing knowledge and explore
new areas, NIH must be able to provide research support for innovative
ideas. In FY 2006 the NIH budget was cut for the first time since 1970,
and the administration's FY 2007 budget proposal would keep the agency at
the same level. Taking inflation into account, the President's budget plan
represents another budget cut that will reduce the number of research
grants funded. As funding falters, the best and brightest minds will turn
away from careers in medical science. If NIH cannot fund new ideas, this
will not only hamper efforts to find cures, it will also discourage up and
coming researchers who could become the next generation of basic and
clinical scientists. The APS urges you to make every effort to provide the
NIH with a 5% funding increase so we can take advantage of more scientific
opportunities that will lead to ways to alleviate the suffering and
burdens of disease and strengthen the nation's scientific workforce to
face future challenges.
"NIH's task is both to cure specific diseases and to look broadly at
scientific opportunities that may help us expand our understanding of
biological problems that affect health. Basic research contributes to a
body of knowledge whose importance will only be determined over time.
Physiology, which is the study of biological function, provides the
foundation for much of the translational research that turns discoveries
into therapies and prevention strategies.
"In addition to supporting research, the NIH must also address workforce
issues to be sure our nation's researchers are ready to meet the
challenges they will face in the future. Last year the NIH announced a new
program to encourage clinical and translational research at universities.
The new Clinical and Translational Service Awards (CTSAs) will provide a
total of $30 million in FY 2006 to develop new research and training
programs at academic institutions around the country. This will allow
researchers to capitalize on knowledge generated from basic research
through the development of clinical applications and treatments.
"Another example is the newly developed Genes and Environment Initiative (GEI).
The GEI is a multi-institute effort to identify genetic and environmental
risk factors that contribute to common diseases such as asthma, diabetes,
heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's disease. The planned research will
build on the Human Genome Project and take advantage of new technologies
developed in the pursuit of basic research. With its wide range of
expertise, the NIH is uniquely suited to undertake broad projects such as
this.
"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 5% funding increase in FY 2007 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
proposal to fund the agency at last year's level, which would force the
NIH to contract its research portfolio, thus leaving many important
projects unfunded."
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/fy2007funding.htm.
NSF and NASA
"Scientific research plays an important role in technological innovation
and economic development and therefore is vitally important to the future
of our nation. The APS applauds the proposed budget increase for NSF, and
recommends implementation of the plan to provide the agency with $6.02
billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 and double its budget in the coming
years. In contrast, while the proposed overall budget increase for NASA is
3.2%, the Human Systems Research and Technology (HSR&T) theme would be cut
by 56%. The APS recommends the restoration of funds to basic life sciences
and countermeasures research at NASA to ensure the safety of humans both
on the International Space Station and in any future space endeavors.
"The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the most
fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. Although at times NSF-funded
research may seem to be exploring questions that lack immediate practical
application, we have learned again and again that the relevance of the
knowledge gained becomes apparent over time. The NSF provides support for
approximately 20% of federally funded basic science and is the major
source of support for non-medical biology research, including integrative,
comparative, and evolutionary biology, as well as interdisciplinary
biological research. The majority of the funding NSF provides is awarded
through competitive, merit-based peer review, which ensures that the best
possible projects are supported. NSF has an excellent record of
accomplishment in terms of funding research endeavors that have produced
results with far-reaching potential.
"NSF also supports outstanding science and math education programs, which
was one of the themes in the President's State of the Union address. NSF
programs enhance education at every level from elementary school through
graduate school and therefore should have merited funding increases for FY
2007. Nevertheless, education programs at the NSF have suffered from
recent budget cuts, and FY 2007 budget proposal similarly fails to give
them the priority they deserve. The President's budget recommends shifting
funding for some NSF educational programs to the Department of Education.
We believe that the NSF is uniquely qualified to foster excellence in
science and math education and urge that funding for these programs remain
at the NSF.
"The APS urges Congress to support the important work being carried out at
NSF by funding the agency at its requested level of $6.02 billion. In
addition, the APS recommends restoration of funding for education programs
at NSF.
"The Human Systems Research and Technology (HSR&T) Theme within NASA was
created to focus on the health and safety of humans involved in space
exploration. During prolonged space flight, the physiological changes that
occur due to microgravity, increased exposure to radiation, confined
living quarters, and alterations in eating and sleeping patterns can lead
to health problems and reduced ability to perform tasks. Given NASA's
current focus on manned space exploration, it is critical that resources
be devoted now to research into the health effects of prolonged space
flight. NASA is the only agency whose mission includes addressing the
biomedical challenges of manned space exploration. Moreover, this research
has already produced findings with potential application to medical
problems that occur in other connections.
"The APS is concerned about the proposed 56% decrease in the allocation
for FY 2007, which is inconsistent with NASA's increased focus on manned
space exploration. The APS joins the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) in urging both a restoration of the cut and
an increase in support for peer-reviewed research into the health risks of
long-term space flight and development of appropriate countermeasures.
"Investment in the basic sciences is critical to our nation's
technological and economic future. The APS strongly supports federal
funding for biological and biomedical research at the NSF and NASA, as it
does for funding at the National Institutes of Health, another agency
whose budget is in need of Congressional attention to counter the real
decline in its ability to fund medical research. The APS urges you to make
every effort to provide these agencies with increased funding for FY
2007."
http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/fy2007funding-nasa.htm.
|
|
PETA
Censured
The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has censured People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for making misleading and
unsubstantiated claims. PETA asserted in a fundraising mailer that animal
research is cruel and useless because animal data are irrelevant to human
health. The ASA is an independent agency in the UK that enforces honesty
in advertising. Its censure of PETA came in response to a complaint raised
by RDS, a pro-research group (http://www.rds-online.org.uk).
Upon reviewing information provided by both sides, the ASA found that PETA
could not adequately prove its claims, which it had presented as facts in
a leaflet. The ASA therefore found PETA in violation of the truthfulness,
substantiation and denigration codes. It ordered PETA not to repeat the
claims.
Investigating the PETA statement that millions of animals die each year in
“painful experiments,” the ASA found no proof that millions of “painful”
experiments were conducted. PETA also said that “animal experiments are
crude and unreliable” because animal “physiologies are vastly different
from humans.” The ASA found this claim to be “misleading.” PETA further
said that researchers “continue using barbaric animal experiments out of
habit and inertia” and animal research is a “gravy train fuelled by
millions of pounds from taxes,” to which the ASA said that animal
experimentation is a “regulatory requirement” and that it was unfair to
insinuate researches are motivated by profit.
None of PETA’s assertions stood up to unbiased scrutiny.
Of the 70 complaints regarding animal research filed with the ASA in the
last fifteen years, only seven investigations were resolved in favor of
animal rights groups. In another recent case, the ASA censured Europeans
for Medical Advancement for its false assertions about the science and
safety of animal research. To support its claim that recent advancements
in childhood leukemia were made entirely based on alternatives to animal
research, the EMA cited evidence from the 1940s and 1950s as well as the
treatment Gleevec. The ASA did not consider the 1940s and 1950s to be
“recent” and determined that Gleevec’s development involved animal
research.
According to Simon Festing, executive director of RDS, the PETA decision
“demonstrates how animal rights activists attempt to raise funds through
deceiving the public about the medical benefits of animal research.”
|
|
Wisconsin Newspaper Supports Dog Labs
Less than a week after publishing a front page story critical of the
Medical College of Wisconsin’s physiology dog lab, the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel took an editorial position in support of the labs as an
educational tool.
A letter from the APS President-elect Hannah V. Carey and the Society
Education Committee Chair, Robert G. Carroll appeared in the Journal
Sentinel the same day. Their letter praised MCW’s “commitment to the
highest quality medical education.” Making note of the dwindling number of
hands-on learning experiences in physiology classes today, Carey and
Carroll lauded the MCW for continuing to offer what they called a
“valuable educational experience.”
The Journal Sentinel editorial relied in part on the APS position
statement on animals in education (http://www.the-aps.org/pa/action/news/animalsinteaching.htm).
While acknowledging the arguments made by opponents to the lab, the
editorial said that those who support the lab make “a stronger case.”
The earlier article primarily based its analysis on information from the
inaccurately-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).
In reality only a small fraction of PCRM’s members are actually
physicians. The group receives substantial financial support from the
animal rights group PETA and consistently takes positions objecting to the
use of animals in research or education.
After the original article appeared, representatives of MCW contacted the
newspaper’s editorial board and brought to their attention the resources
APS has developed on the educational value of animal labs. The resulting
editorial expressed the view that the animal laboratory exercise provided
“the kind of firsthand experience [students] could not get by using other
techniques.” The editorial also noted that cost, not usefulness, has been
the primary reason many other medical schools have stopped offering dog
labs.
Although the MCW dog lab is voluntary, over 90% of students consistently
participate in the exercise. One student interviewed in the original
article described as invaluable the opportunity to experience first hand
“the force required to move blood around the body.” |
