|
Public Affairs |
|
|
|
Federal
Funding for Research in FY 2007 |
|
|
|
Congressional action on Fiscal Year 2007 (FY
07) funding got off to a promising start this summer when the House of
Representatives finished 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills by the end
of June. However, the Senate, which traditionally takes up the bills after
the House, was slower to act. The Senate had voted on only one funding
measure before adjourning for the August recess. Given the press of other
legislative priorities and the upcoming mid-term elections, it is likely
that Congress will need to return for a lame duck session to complete action
on this “must pass” legislation. The current status of House and Senate action on biomedical research funding is provided below. National Institutes of Health (NIH) The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education funding bill was the only one that the full House of Representatives did not take up before its August recess. The delay was due to concerns about a controversial amendment that would raise the minimum wage. The FY 07 funding bill is disappointing for researchers because the House Appropriations Committee accepted the administration’s no-growth budget request. On the Senate side, NIH’s champions on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Ed bill recommended an additional $220 million in FY 07, which would provide an increase of less than 1% over FY 06.The bill faces opposition from moderates in both chambers who have expressed dissatisfaction with cuts to vital health and education programs in the bill. National Science Foundation (NSF) The administration requested $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in FY 07, as part of its Competitiveness Initiative, and appropriators in both the House and Senate funded the NSF at that level. The measure has passed the House but has yet to be voted on by the Senate. The increase to $6 billion would represent an 8% increase in NSF’s budget and is the first step towards doubling the agency’s budget over the next 10 years. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Despite significant controversy over NASA spending priorities, appropriators in both chambers approved an increase for the agency that would bring its total budget to approximately $16.8 billion in FY 07. While the overall increase is good news for the agency, the Human Systems Research and Technology development program is still expected to be cut by 56% to $276 million in FY 07. This cut is particularly ill-timed because of NASA’s increased focus planning for human space exploration. Veterans Affairs Medical and Prosthetic Research (VA) Appropriators in both the House of Representatives and the Senate were able to restore proposed cuts to VA medical and prosthetic research, allocating $412 million for the program. This brings funding for the program back to last year’s level but provides no increase over FY 06. |
|
|
|
In June of 2006, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) issued a draft strategic plan for Fiscal Years
2006-2011 entitled “Investing in America’s Future.” The agency invited
the stakeholder community to provide input on the plan, and the APS
submitted comments in July. The NSF will review the plan and issue a
final version this fall. The following are excerpts from the APS letter
sent to NSF Director Arden Bement. “The APS agrees with the NSF’s focus on supporting individual investigators and small research groups. By working to ensure the quality, transparency and consistency of the merit-based review, the agency will continue to identify and support outstanding research. “Physiology research often involves taking a whole systems approach to problems in biology, and the APS is strongly supportive of the NSF’s plans to foster collaborative, interdisciplinary research. The NSF provides critical funding support to scientists who are not typically supported by other agencies, including those that carry out non-medical biological research, as well as those in the physical and behavioral sciences and engineering. The APS is supportive of maintaining this broad range of disciplines in the NSF portfolio, however, the Society is concerned that the agency is under growing pressure to focus on the physical sciences to the exclusion of the other disciplines. The APS urges the NSF to be inclusive of its longstanding role in supporting biological research in its plans and initiatives. “As a Society committed to fostering science education, the APS strongly supports the NSF’s initiatives to improve the quality of science education. The APS believes that the NSF is uniquely qualified to design and implement programs that will advance science through improved education at all levels. In particular, the APS appreciates efforts to promote discovery based learning and integrate science education and research. In addition, we support the goal of increasing minority representation in the scientific workforce by working with diverse institutions, including those that serve largely minority populations. “The APS applauds the budget support that the agency is expected to receive as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative and is pleased that Congress and the Administration have recognized the outstanding science programs at the NSF. Over the next ten years as the agency’s budget doubles, we hope that NSF will not only make the most of the opportunities that come with more funding, including maintaining its key role in supporting research in non-medical biological sciences, but also look ahead and plan for the years following the doubling of the budget.” To see the full text of the APS comments, go to: http://www.the-aps.org/Fa/resources/archives/comments/NSFstrategicplan.pdf. |
|
|
|
In recent years, the ferocity and scope of
animal rights extremism has escalated beyond the reach of laws intended
to protect its potential targets. Legislation introduced in the Senate
by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) as S. 1926, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act (AETA), would amend the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 to
address the tactics of today’s extremists. Representative Thomas Petri
(R-WI) has introduced a comparable bill (H.R. 4239) in the House. The AETA would close the loopholes in existing law to prevent extremists from threatening and harassing those working to relieve human suffering through medical discovery. Contrary to the complaints of some activists, it would have no effect on legitimate and peaceful protests because its provisions would only take effect when a crime has been committed. Extremists not only target research facilities, but also individual employees and others who are associated with companies that do business with targeted facilities. These techniques are known as secondary and tertiary targeting. At a May 2006 hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in the House, GlaxoSmithKline Vice President of Corporate Security and Investigations, William Trundley, testified that because of his company’s connection to Huntingdon Life Science, animal rights extremists have targeted GSK employees, shareholders and others only tangentially connected to the company. Trundley provided examples of harassment, vandalism, slander, theft and death threats. Although by his count, there had been 150 incidents over the preceding 21 months, none had resulted in a criminal conviction. The problem is that there are gaps in current laws that the extremists eagerly exploit. Because their actions in any one jurisdiction may only amount to petty crimes, the extremists orchestrating these campaigns have largely evaded arrest. Although federal law enforcement authorities recognize the significance of the totality of these actions, they currently lack the tools to investigate and prosecute them. According to Trundley, “the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act will provide law enforcement with those tools.” Campaigns of intimidation increase the cost of research because of the need to increase security, replace damaged property, and recreate spoiled work. However, it has impacts even more costly than the financial burden. These campaigns slow the pace of medical progress itself. In a recent case, an associate professor of neurobiology at ULCA was forced to leave the field. This individual was targeted by a number of activist groups including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) because of his research with macaque monkeys to learn how the brain controls vision. He had already endured years of harassment including home demonstrations and leafleting his neighborhood, when in late June activists tried to leave a Molotov cocktail on the doorstep of one of his colleagues. The researcher then sent an Email telling the ALF press office, “You win. Effective immediately, I am no longer doing animal research.” The researcher asked in return that he and his family be left alone, but the director of the Primate Freedom Project, said that the group would not remove his name from its web site until he provided a videotaped statement declaring that he will no longer use any animal in any experiment and apologizing for having caused pain and suffering to animals. This kind of incident is extremely damaging because it derails a productive research career and dissuades young scientists from even entering the field because of fears that they too will become targets. The APS has joined with other organizations in urging Congress to pass S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to cope with animal rights extremists. |
|
|