|
Science Policy |
|
Congress Finalizes FY 2008 Funding for Research |
|
|
|
On December 19, 2007, nearly three months
after the start of the 2008 fiscal year, Congress approved the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764) to fund most federal agencies,
including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), NASA and the VA. Despite objecting to the number of
earmarks included in the legislation, President Bush signed the bill into
law on December 26. Funding levels for key research agencies are outlined
below. National Institutes of Health In FY 2008, the NIH will receive a total of $29.2 billion, a 1.1% ($329 million) increase over FY 2007 funding. However, an additional $196 million will be transferred to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, leaving the NIH with $28.9 billion, a mere 0.46% increase over last year. This will be the fourth consecutive year that the NIH budget increase has failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation for biomedical research, estimated at 3.7% for FY 2008. President Bush vetoed an earlier version of the funding measure that would have provided the NIH with an additional $1 billion in 2008. While the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 will essentially provide flat funding or modest increases for most institutes and centers in 2008, some programs will receive increases. The National Children’s Health Study will receive an additional $42 million (for a total of $111 million), and the Common Fund for trans-NIH initiatives will grow to $495 million with a $12 million increase over last year. National Science Foundation The NSF will receive an increase of 2.5% ($148 million) in FY 2008, bringing the agency’s total budget to $6.065 billion. This is a disappointing outcome on the heels of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, authorizing legislation that called for putting the agency on track to double its budget over the next several years. The funding level also falls short of the Administration’s budget request that called for an 8.7% increase over FY 2007. Education programs at NSF received a boost of 4% over last year, faring better than research programs, which grew by only 1.2%. VA Funding for Medical and Prosthetic research at the VA was the bright spot in this year’s funding bill, with the program receiving $480 million in FY 2008, a 16.5% ($68 million) increase over last year. NASA Funding for NASA’s overall budget increased by 3.1% to a total of $17.3 billion in FY 2008. While this is a positive result for the agency, the increasing costs of the space shuttle, international space station and other competing priorities have strained the agency’s ability to fund science programs. |
|
|
|
Congress Mandates Public Access to Publicly-funded Biomedical Research |
|
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Congress included the
following language: “The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.” The current policy, which encourages voluntary submission of accepted manuscripts to PubMed Central, has not met with great success. The new language requires NIH-funded researchers to deposit their manuscripts. Exactly how the NIH will implement this directive “in a manner consistent with copyright law” has not yet been announced. |
|
|
|
APS has recommended that the USDA conduct a
thorough review of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS)
Animal Care (AC) Policy Manual to ensure consistency with the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA) and the AWA Regulations. This was one of the recommendations made
in comments on the AC Policy Manual that were submitted to USDA November 13,
2007. On July 24, 2007, APHIS published a request for public comments on the AC Policy Manual with a comment deadline of September 24, 2007. However, the notice attracted considerable interest, and the comment deadline was extended to November 16. In the end, more than 60 individuals and organizations submitted comments. Many were submitted by the members of research community challenging various sections of the manual that lack scientific justification or regulatory authority. Certain USDA policies have been a long-running source of frustration because they were used as a quasi-regulatory framework by USDA inspectors even though they were developed and implemented internally by the USDA with no opportunity–until now– for public comment or critique. In its announcement, APHIS described the AC manual as “[g]uidance developed primarily for USDA’s Animal Care field inspectors, and provided to the regulated community, which clarifies, interprets, and/or provides examples of how to comply with an existing Animal Welfare Act regulation or standard.” It explained that it was issuing a request for comments because of a January 25, 2007 bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget on Agency Good Guidance Practices that now requires federal agencies to publish “significant guidance documents” for public comment. However, while such comments are to be given “due consideration,” according to APHIS this process differs from the notice and comment requirement for regulations in that the agency is not required to publish a response to the recommendations it receives. In its comments, APS noted, “It has long been a source of concern to the research community that the AC Policy Manual, which is a guidance document, has been used as if it had the authority of a regulatory document.” APS echoed the recommendation of the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) that each policy be reviewed in light of the OMB Bulletin, which calls upon agencies to eliminate the use of “mandatory” language such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement” except in cases where the policy is re-stating a statutory or regulatory requirement. The APS recommended further that in each case, the revised language “should clarify. . .that alternative means to comply with the guidance provided in the Policies are permissible.” APS specifically urged USDA to revise certain aspects of the Manual that deal with veterinary care (Policy #3), painful procedures (Policy #11), consideration of alternatives to painful/distressful procedures (Policy #12), major survival surgery (Policy #14), IACUC membership (Policy # 15), and annual reports (Policy #17). The text of the APS comments on the APHIS AC Policy Manual is available at http://www.the-aps.org/pa/resources/archives/comments/APHIS.htm. |
|
|
|
In the wake of a rash of vandalism and
harassment from animal rights extremists, a number of organizations have
issued public statements denouncing violence against those who conduct
medical research with animals. These statements were made in the wake of a
series of incidents during the past year and a half at the University of
California and the Oregon Health Sciences University. The University of California has been a focus of animal extremists who have targeted not only facilities, but also the homes and families of three UCLA faculty researchers. Most recently, vandals claiming to be members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) flooded the home of Edythe London, a researcher who is studying the effects of nicotine and methamphetamine addiction. In June, animal militants claimed credit for placing a lit firebomb that fortunately did not explode under the car of another faculty member. In August 2006, a vision researcher gave up his animal research program after extremists placed a Molotov cocktail at the doorstep of the home of an elderly woman, erroneously believing that it belonged to one of his colleagues. [http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/2006html/October/paffair.htm#research] Oregon Health Science University (OHSU) has likewise been a frequent target of extremists, in part due to its National Primate Research Center, the source of promising and high profile research including the November 15, 2007 announcement of the first successful cloning of a primate embryonic stem cell. In July, “ALF Eyes on You” was painted on the garage door of one researcher. This act of vandalism was followed by a threat to firebomb his home. In December, Dr. Miles Novy, who works to reduce the risks of premature births, found “sadist” and “ALF” spray painted on his cars. These attacks follow years of harassment and nighttime protests at OHSU researchers’ homes. On October 22, 2007 the Association of American Universities (AAU) issued a statement [http://www.aau.edu/research/STMT_AAU_Animal_Res_10-22-07.pdf] emphasizing the “vital role” animal research has played in “virtually every major biomedical advance of the last century.” The AAU went on to assert that while universities should “provide a forum for civil discourse” they also have an “obligation to protect faculty, staff members, and students from harassment, threats, and physical harm.” On November 28, 2007 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/1129board_anires.shtml] condemning violence, maintaining its longtime support for animal research, and calling on scientists and the public to rally together to defend targeted investigators “whose freedom to conduct research is under attack.” On December 5, 2007, the Chancellors of the University of California (UC) issued a statement [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/16956] declaring the value of animal research and condemning the violence of animal rights extremists. The Chancellors’ Statement reaffirmed the invaluable role animal research plays in medical advancement and asserted the university’s dedication to “the highest standards of animal care, safety and health.” It also reiterated the University’s commitment to free speech as a cornerstone of an academic environment. The statement went on to say that, though “individuals are entitled … to mount First Amendment-protected protests” these escalated tactics “have crossed the line.” December 18, 2007 the Council on Governmental Relations likewise issued a statement [http://206.151.87.67/docs/AnimalResearchStatement.doc] condemning violence. It went further to maintain “that the rights to free inquiry and expression within the boundaries of applicable laws, regulations and institutional policies are fundamental to academic freedom” and that “among these rights is the responsible and humane treatment and use of animals in research that continues to make vital contributions to the health and well being of humans and animals.” Meanwhile, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Norka Ruiz Bravo issued two statements in response to the increase in violence. The first was issued November 1, 2007 [http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2007/od-02.htm] and the second on December 14, 2007 [http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2007/oer-14.htm]. Ruiz Bravo defended the scientists who have come under attack and outlined the pressing need for their research. “Terrorist acts are absolutely intolerable,” Ruiz Bravo said, adding “threats to research with animals threaten the health of the nation.” |
|
|