|
Research Advocacy at EB 2007
Communicating with Congress
Communicating with Congress was the theme of the EB 2007 symposium sponsored
by the APS Communications Committee. Committee Chair Frank Belloni chaired
the session, which he explained was intended to prepare scientists to get
involved in Congressional advocacy.
FASEB Director of Legislative Relations Jon Retzlaff began by describing the
many challenges that research advocates currently face in Congress. Retzlaff
noted that budget limitations and competing priorities have reduced the pool
of money available for allocation to research. The change in party control
of Congress has also affected the budget situation because Democrats have a
number of priority programs that have been chronically under-funded in
recent years. The attitude among many on Capitol Hill that the NIH got its
due with the five-year doubling of its budget represents a further
challenge, as does the lack of knowledge among lawmakers and the public at
large about the National Institutes of Health and its role in funding
science.
Retzlaff emphasized the need for scientists to engage and explain the
benefits of the work they do to Congress and highlighted effective advocacy
strategies. One such strategy is the use of a consistent message. For
example, this year, the biomedical research community has agreed to ask for
a 6.7% increase for the NIH in each of the next three years because these
increases would restore the agency’s purchasing power to the level it
reached at the end of the doubling.
Sarah England shared her perspective on what Congressional staffers need to
hear from research advocates. England is an associate professor of
physiology at the University of Iowa and a former fellow on Senator Hillary
Clinton’s staff. She stressed that staff rely on constituents to communicate
clearly about the issues. Since most Congressional staff are not extensively
trained in the sciences, it is important to make the messages clear, simple
and personal, without too much scientific detail. She also recommended
formulating a specific request or “ask,” rather than discussing problems in
an open-ended manner. In addition, you should be prepared to explain who
might oppose your position and respond to the arguments they might make.
Finally, England recommended bringing business cards and writing on them
your areas of expertise and issues of concern.
Bill Talman addressed the importance of researchers using their voices on
behalf of the scientific community. Talman is a Professor of Neurology at
the University of Iowa and the past Chair of the APS Public Affairs
Committee. He described effective ways to reach out to Members of Congress,
including personal visits, letters, and phone calls. He suggested that
researchers convey where their expertise lies and that they express their
willingness to help the office on matters related to science. In addition,
researchers should also explain how they as constituents will be affected by
decisions made in Congress. Repeatedly reaching out to Members of Congress
and their staff makes it possible to develop a relationship with the office
that will be beneficial in the long run, but such relationships can also be
critically important when urgent issues arise. Talman also emphasized the
importance of keeping messages on point, offering to help where appropriate
and being willing to compromise.
Stacie Propst stressed the importance of scientists as messengers in
research advocacy. Propst is senior director of science policy and outreach
at Research!America. She noted that while Research!America’s poll data has
shown Americans have respect for scientists, they know very few personally –
highlighting the need for scientists to become more actively involved within
their communities. Propst suggested that researchers partner with the
patient groups, which will increase the level of awareness in the public and
Congress about the importance of NIH-funded research and its benefits for
health. Propst also described Research!America’s campaign, “Your Congress,
Your Health”, which asks Members of Congress to answer a series of questions
about research. Research!America plans to post their answers on its website
so constituents will know their elected officials’ positions on research and
health care issues.
APS members go to Capitol Hill
About a dozen APS members took advantage of the fact that the Experimental
Biology ‘07 meeting was in Washington and scheduled meetings with their
Senators and Representatives. The APS Office of Science Policy (formerly the
Office of Public Affairs) provided “how to” information and talking points
to assist them in scheduling meetings with their Members of Congress.
Even if you were not able to arrange Congressional visits during EB ‘07,
Members of Congress frequently travel to their districts to meet with
constituents. For more information on how to arrange a visit with your
Senator or Representative, visit the APS Science Policy web pages at
http://www.the-aps.org/pa |
|
Congress Considers Research Funding for FY 2008
In late spring, Congress
began considering appropriations legislation that will fund federal
agencies and programs, including research, in fiscal year (FY) 2008.
With the Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress for the first
time in 12 years, the process was off to a rocky start with debates
about earmarks and veto threats from the President. Appropriators in the
House of Representatives and the Senate are working to develop their
respective versions of the budget, but the process is expected to
stretch into the fall.
The budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has
received only minimal, sub-inflationary increases in recent years, is
slated to receive an additional $750 million over FY 2007 spending in
the House budget plan and an additional $1 billion in the Senate plan.
Both the House and Senate would require the NIH to transfer another $200
million to the Global AIDS/HIV fund, giving the agency’s budget a net
increase of 1.9% under the House plan and 2.8% under the Senate plan.
While both plans would reverse the cut proposed by the administration,
the increases would be far below the 6.7% increase recommended by the
APS and FASEB that would get the NIH back on track.
The National Science Foundation’s budget fares better, with a proposed
10% increase over FY 2007 under the House budget plan. The additional
$593 million would bring the agency’s budget to $6.51 billion in FY
2008. The Senate’s budget plan would provide NSF with an increase of
$637 million, to reach a total of $6.55 billion, nearly 11% over FY
2007. This measure awaits full consideration of the House of
Representatives, and the Senate appropriations committee.
A bright spot in the budget picture is the medical and prosthetic
research program at the VA. House appropriators have increased the
allocation for medical and prosthetic research by 16%, to $480 million,
a number that matches the FASEB request. Senate appropriators have gone
even further, increasing the budget by 21% to $500 million. These
increases would come on top of a $33 million boost that VA medical and
prosthetic research received in the supplemental appropriations bill
passed earlier this year that funded the Iraq war.
|
|
NIH Director Elias Zerhouni and
Former Congressman John Porter
Address NIH Needs
 |
| NIH Director Elias Zerhouni,
APS Executive Director Martin Frank, APS President-Elect Hannah
Carey, APS President Dale Benos, and Former Congressman John
Porter. |
At a session jointly sponsored by all
participating EB societies, former Congressman John Porter and NIH
Director Elias Zerhouni spoke about the importance of funding for
biomedical research. While in Congress, Porter chaired the House
appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and related agencies, where he led the push to double the NIH
budget. As a longtime champion of the NIH, Porter was able to share with
the audience how critically important it is for Congress to hear
directly from the research community. Porter was followed by Elias
Zerhouni, who spoke about the current budget situation as well as the
plans that NIH is making to move medicine forward in the coming years.
|
