The Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
Newsletter
IN THIS ISSUE: September 1998
1. Congress Facing Major Legislative Work Before Adjournment
Only four of the 13 bills needed to keep the government working after
October 9 have been sent to the President. What does the future hold
for the programs that fund education and behavioral and social science
research?
2. New Education Research Chief Finally Appointed
After nearly a year of waiting, Kent McGuire is officially on board at
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement and he is beginning
to take charge.
3. NIAAA Genetic Study Results
NIAAA sponsored human genome scans of select populations are honing in
on specific chromosomal links between both vulnerability and protective
factors with respect to alcoholism.
4. New HIV Study Shows Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions
A new study shows impressive results for behavioral interventions to
reduce the incidence of HIV.
5. A Time for Reform: OIG's Report on Institutional Review Boards
The Inspector General's office sees some problems and some promise in
IRBs and has some suggestions as to how to minimize the former and
maximize the latter.
6. October 9 is the Deadline for Weighing in on the Proposed New
Behavioral and Social Science Study Sections at NIH
An outline of the proposed 14 new study sections for behavioral and
social science research at NIH is presented. Take a look. Comment.
(Soon.)
7. Briefly Speaking
Conference announcements:
Society for Neuroscience
Healthy People Consortium
Racial Trends in the United States
Congress Facing Major Legislative Work Before Adjournment
Congress is rushing to finish appropriations bills in order to
adjourn and go home to campaign. The federal budget is broken into
thirteen spending bills which must all be passed in order to fully fund
the government. The two major defense billsMilitary Construction and
National Security/Defensehave gone to the President for his signature.
The Energy and Water and the Legislative Branch appropriations bills are
ready to go to the President. But the other nine bills still have a way
to go. Those bills contain most of the funding for behavioral and
social science research and for education.
NSF Appropriation
As we go to press, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies bill, which
contains NSF and NASA funding is in conference, that is, appointed
representatives of the House and Senate are meeting to work out
differences between their two versions of the bill. That conference
should be completed shortly. Both the House and Senate bills have
healthy increases for NSF, but the House bill has the healthiest
increase because Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (RNJ), one of the
House champions for science, managed to have an amendment passed that
raised FHA loan rates slightly, and the income from that increase would
be divided between NSF and the Veterans Administration. That would add
$70 million to the NSF budget. Both the House and Senate are generally
favorable toward NSF, and there is a good chance the Frelinghuysen
amendment will remain intact through conference.
The District of Columbia Circuit Court has also potentially added
$60 million to the NSF budget by finding that NSF can use funds that had
been charged for assigning domain names for Internet providers.
Republicans had declared that the fee amounted to an unapproved tax, and
use of the funds had been held up in litigation. Their opposition to
use of the money seemed to have softened earlier in the year when an
amendment to a supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998
allowed NSF to use the $60 million for Next Generation Internet
activities. But now Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has decided to
offer an amendment to a bill called the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The
bill would spell out the rights of states to tax sales over the
Internet. But the amendment would again prohibit NSF from using the
domain name money. If Lott's amendment succeeds, it could be very
painful for NSF not just in lost spending power. When the court ruled
in NSF's favor and the supplemental also allowed NSF's use of the money,
NSF committed at least $25 million of the money to projects. If the
Lott amendment passes, NSF would have to uncommit, retrieve, or
otherwise make up that $25 million. As we go to press, a filibuster has
delayed full consideration of the relevant bill until the week of
October 5. The rush to pass the rest of the appropriations bills and to
deal with the Houseinitiated proposal to cut taxes could make the
congressional clock run out before the bill can be passed. Adjournment
is scheduled for October 9. The House version does not contain the Lott
amendment, and thus, even if the Lott amendment passes in the Senate, it
would still be a conference item. The bottom line? The odds are pretty
good that NSF will get to use the $60 million.
NIH and Department of Education Appropriation
The Labor, HHS, Education appropriation bill is much farther from
resolution than the VAHUD bill. That is good and bad. The House and
the Senate have given generous increases to NIH in their respective
bills. Research at the Department of Education, on the other hand, has
not fared as well. The President did not ask for an increase in
research funding, and none was given. He did ask for $75 million for a
joint research program between the Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation. That money was not approved on the
Department of Education side although it appears that there may be money
on the NSF side to start a scaled down joint effort. At the last minute
in the appropriations process, extra money often appears. In our visits
to Capitol Hill, we have pressed for the Labor, HHS, Education
appropriations subcommittees to give some of the extra money, should it
appear, to education research since if that does not happen, it will
mark the third consecutive year that such research has been flat funded.
Senate Increase for OBSSR
The Senate version of the bill contains a welcome boost for the
Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research (OBSSR). The Senate
would increase OBSSR's budget by more than $10 million in order to allow
it to fund 10 regional mind/body research centers. Specifically, the
Senate report language reads:
"The Committee understands that behavioral science is an area of
exceptional promise for understanding and ameliorating some of the
Nation's most serious health concerns, many of which are due to
behavior, and commends OBSSR for its effort to increase the visibility
of behavioral science at NIH. The Committee recognizes that OBSSR's
budget is extremely limited, and urges the Director to examine OBSSR's
budget in order to increase the number of crossNIH behavioral research
and training initiatives.
The Committee recognizes that stress attributes to a host of
medical conditions confronted by health care practitioners, and current
pharmaceutical and surgical approaches cannot adequately treat
stressrelated illnesses...The Committee further encourages the Director
to establish 10 mind/body centers around the Nation, and report to the
Committee prior to the consideration of next year's request on the
status of establishment of these centers..."
This possible infusion of new funds is great news for OBSSR, which,
since its inception in 1995, has been trying to increase the visibility
and credibility of behavioral and social science research. Norman
Anderson, OBSSR's Director, was invited to testify before the Senate
Appropriations Committee Sept. 22 on the mind/body pilot research
centers that will focus on "the relaxation response" and "health effects
of belief."
The Federation has signed onto a letter in support of the Senate's
efforts. The letter, drafted by the American Psychological Association
(APA) and the Consortium of Social Sciences Associations (COSSA), was
sent to Rep. John Porter (RIL), Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, requesting that the House Conference Committee members
support the increased funding proposed by the Senate.
Threatened Veto
Unfortunately, the bill has problems. The President has said he
would veto this bill in its current state because of distasteful riders
and important deletions. For example, once again funding for the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program administered by Health and Human
Services to provide poor people with heat in the winter time has been
deleted. It was the defunding of this program before the last election
that was partly responsible for the appropriations gridlock that shut
down the government and led to Republican losses in the House.
Such gridlock is going to be avoided at all cost this time around.
So it seems likely that if appropriate compromises cannot be reached
with the White House on the items that would assure the President's veto
of this massive spending bill, a Continuing Resolution will be passed to
keep the three departments and related agencies functioning.
Technically a Continuing Resolution simply carries current funding
levels forward into the new fiscal year. If Congress were to pay
attention to that technicality, then NIH would stand to lose a $2
billion increase. But legislators have been saying that they would
attempt to treat the Continuing Resolution as though it were the actual
appropriation bill. That is, they would follow the spending pattern for
fiscal year 1999 that has been outlined in the House and Senate
appropriations bills, but, presumably, without the additions and
deletions that have so far prevented passage of a final spending bill.
Stay tuned. We'll tell you the ending to these stories next month. (We
hope!)
New Education Research Chief Finally Appointed
At his welcoming reception on Capitol Hill on September 29th, the
new Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement
recounted how his wife Yvonne would ask him periodically why he was
leaving a job that everyone wanted to take a position no one wanted. As
the months dragged by and his confirmation was held up in the Senate,
it, no doubt, became harder and harder to answer his wife's query. But
Kent McGuire persisted, and the Senate finally approved his nomination
to fill the post that has been missing a permanent head since December
1996 when Sharon Robinson left the position to become a vice president
at the Educational Testing Service.
The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) has
languished during its time without an assistant secretary. Its budget
has remained flat during that period. Moreover, just before Sharon
Robinson's departure, the government offered an early retirement package
to staff people at the Department of Education as a way of reducing the
size of the federal work force without laying people off. An
unexpectedly large number of senior staff at OERI found the offer too
much to pass up. So OERI has been proceeding for nearly two years with
large gaps in its management structure. Kent McGuire is intent on
rededicating OERI. A good thing, too, because OERI's authorization is
set to expire, and it will fall in significant part to McGuire to figure
out how OERI should be put together during its next five authorized
years of existence.
Kent McGuire is well known in the educational research community.
He comes to OERI from the Pew Charitable Trusts where he was program
officer for the education portfolio. Before coming to Pew, McGuire held
a similar position at the Lilly Endowment. He has also been an
assistant professor of education at the University of Colorado and
served for nine years as a school finance policy analyst for the
Education Commission of the States. As a longtime reviewer and funder
of education research and education project proposals, Kent McGuire is
well suited to the challenge he faces now.
In the short time he has been at OERI, some of his initial thoughts
on how to approach that challenge have begun to emerge. He appreciates
that financial resources never go as far as one would like them to go.
But he means to do whatever he can to put some financial wind back in
OERI's sails. At the same time, he sees that to be worth its funding,
OERI has to have a positive impact. In the shortrun, achieving that
will depend on concentrating resources on a few things that OERI
uniquely can and ought to do well. These undertakings should not
duplicate work already supported by the other major education research
funding agenciesthe National Science Foundation, the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Department of
Defense. Among OERI's special strengths are its contact with, and
knowledge of schools, the children in the schools, the education policy
system, and education evaluation. So McGuire wants to draw on these
assets to determine where OERI can have the greatest impact. He has
been thinking about three candidates for highpriority activity:
Improving the quality of teaching; picking and solving one or two
specific problems in education; and increasing the capacity of the
education research enterprise by bringing in more talent and more
diversity.
Though he is turning these ideas over in his mind, he has not yet
settled on the specific items on which he will focus OERI. He is eager
to gather information that will help him make those decisions. To do
that, he is intent on keeping the relationships he has outside the
Beltway and outside the government, and he wants to cultivate new
relationships. Past experience has shown him that good programs break
down, and good research remains unapplied when leadership is not
present. In particular, education programs have encountered problems
when the attempt is made to move them from limited to more general
application. And sustaining good programs has also been a problem. He
wants to understand the nature of those problems and to use OERI
resources to overcome them. Knowledge is an important driver of both
sustainability and generalization of education improvement programs.
Thus, one of McGuire's goals is to broker a better working relationship
between research and improvement. It appears likely that this goal will
help shape his thinking about the structure for OERI that he wants to
emerge from the authorization process. He would like to extend the
movement begun in the last authorization to remove both research and
improvement from the influence of passing political fads and instead
link both research and improvement to the solution of enduring problems
in teaching, learning, and education management.
McGuire would like to start the process toward changing the
education research and improvement culture. Within OERI, he wishes to
have program officers who know the work they are funding so well that
they can be both leaders in building the knowledge base for education
and experts in how to move effectively from research to practice. To
begin that cultural evolution, McGuire has initiated an Administrative
Council made up of OERI officers. In addition to management
discussions, the Council devotes time regularly to a free exchange of
ideas about educational research and improvement. He plans to bring
researchers and others in during these sessions to participate in the
dialogue. McGuire wants researchers and practitioners to become less
skeptical about what they do and to work together more closely. He
wants the field to begin documenting the return on investment in
research and improvement, to define the enduring problems, and to
recognize emerging areas of knowledge with high potential for fruitful
application. One way he hopes to begin cultivating this positive
attitude and objective approach is to increase the interaction of OERI
staff with researchers and practitioners. For example, rather than
simply sending grant applicants the raw panel reviews of their
applications, he plans to ask program officers to also read the
proposals carefully and react in writing to them. He wants OERI staff,
researchers, and practitioners to begin seeing themselves as partners in
the effort to improve teaching and learning. He figures he has perhaps
two years to make his mark. So he doesn't plan to tarry along the way.
Genome Scan Suggests Linkages on Chromosomes 1, 2, 4 and 7 for
Alcoholism
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA) recently released study results containing strong evidence that
alcohol dependence vulnerability is linked to chromosomes 1 and 7 and
more modest evidence of a linkage to chromosome 2. The NIAAAsupported
Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA), conducted by
Theodore Reich, M.D. Dept. of Psychiatry, Washington University School
of Medicine, St. Louis, MO was reported on in Neuropsychiatric Genetics
(May 1998, Vol. 81, Number 3).
Using a wholegenome scan of families with high alcoholism
prevalence, the researchers also found evidence for linkage to a
protective locus on chromosome 4 near the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH)
genes, a result similar to that from an independent genome scan
conducted by NIAAA's Laboratory of Neurogenetics and reported in the
same journal issue. The study assessed 987 individuals from 105
multigenerational families selected through 23 female and 82 male adults
in metropolitan inpatient and outpatient alcoholism treatment programs.
Each of the 105 families contained at least three firstdegree relatives
with alcohol dependence. Like alcoholism in the general U.S. population,
the study group was predominantly Caucasian and evidenced considerable
comorbidity with other psychiatric diagnoses.
The researchers assessed participants according to tDSMIIIR and
Feighner diagnostic systems operationalized through the SemiStructured
Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA) lifetime psychiatric
interview designed for this study. They then examined 291 DNA markers
at an average interval of 13.8 centiMorgans using stateoftheart
statistical methods to detect alcoholism susceptibility loci across
affected, unaffected, and discordant (one affected and one unaffected)
sibling pair groups. While, by the strictest analytic criteria, no
locus was definitive for linkage, loci on chromosomes 1, 2, 4, and 7
were of sufficient strength to warrant further study.
"Highly suggestive evidence for linkage at one chromosome 1 locus
was consistent across analytic methods and sibling pair groups, strongly
suggesting a gene in this region that is important in alcoholism
susceptibility, " according to Dr. Reich. A second probably unrelated,
chromosome 1 locus also evidenced involvement. Chromosome 7 evidence
was strong in sibling pairs with alcohol dependence but less well
supported across all analytic methods, and the chromosome 2 finding
modestly suggested linkage according to stringent criteria.
The chromosome 4 evidence in unaffected sibling pairs suggests a
protective locus near the region that contains the alcohol dehydrogenase
(ADH) gene cluster. ADH2 and ADH3 in that cluster are known to encode
isozymes that accelerate the metabolism of ethanol to acetaldehyde,
creating the aversive "flushing reaction" that prevents many Asians from
regular or heavy drinking. Evidence for an additional protective
chromosome 4 locus in COGA's predominantly Caucasian sample, was
corroborated by an independent scan in an American Indian sample, and
represents the most potent evidence to date from human alcoholism
genetics studies for this protective factor in chromosome 4.
Alcoholism may be the most complex of the complex disorders. It
involves multiple genes and multiple neurotransmitter systems that can
differ from one family, or even one individual, to the next, according
to NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis, M.D. Under Dr. Gordis' leadership, the
twotrack search for human alcoholism genes has been a major NIAAA
research priority.
"When, over the next few years, we pinpoint the actual genes that
confer and mitigate alcoholism risk, we can target preventive
interventions and devise pharmacologic treatments based on that
knowledge," Dr. Gordis said. "Understanding genetic factors also is the
first critical step in unraveling the more complex contribution of
environmental factors."
COGA's first reports are a milestone in the most ambitious and
authoritative genetics program ever mounted to study a complex disorder,
according to Dr. Henri Begleiter who has directed COGA for the past nine
years. "When in 1999 the data set becomes available to all qualified
scientists, it will serve as a national resource."
COGA investigators now are analyzing results from a second scan in
a similarly ascertained replication sample with 157 families and 1,313
informative members. For linkages confirmed by the replication,
investigators will use flanking markers to narrow the region of interest
on each chromosome. In addition, a fiveyear followup with juvenile
members of the genotyped families will be conducted that will allow
measurement of the effects of susceptibility loci as well as testing of
geneenvironment hypotheses.
Source: NIH/NIAAA
For additional information on alcoholism genetics and other alcohol
research topics, visit NIAAA's web site at: <http://www.niaaa.nih.gov.>
Institutional Review Boards "Losing Their Effectiveness"
Institutional review boards (IRBs)
are in jeopardy of losing their effectiveness, according to a recently
released report by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Inspector
General's Office of Evaluation and Inspection (OEI). The report,
"Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform," is the final part of a
fourvolume series addressing the role of IRBs in protecting human
subjects participating in clinical research.
The primary concern of the evaluators/reviewers is that the
"longestablished system for protecting human research subjects has
vulnerabilities that threaten its effectiveness. ...we offer a warning
signal and a framework for a concerted response...," the report
concludes. The specific findings that led to this conclusion are:
IRBs face major changes in the research environment;
IRBs review too much, too quickly, with too little expertise;
IRBs conduct minimal continuing review of approved research;
IRBs face conflicts that threaten their independence;
IRBs provide little training for investigators and board members;
and,
Neither IRBs nor HHS devote much attention to evaluating IRB
effectiveness.
Based on these areas of concern the reviewers made several
recommendations, yet made it clear that "they do not claim that there
are widespread abuses of human research subjects. The current system of
protections is supported by many conscientious research investigators
committed to protecting human subjects and by many dedicated IRB members
and staff doing their best under trying circumstances. A reviewer of
this system cannot help but be impressed by the contributions of these
individuals, and the important function that IRBs have fulfilled over
the past quarter of a century."
The following recommendations were made jointly to the Office of
Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) at the National Institutes of
Health and to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the two primary
HHS agencies responsible for IRB oversight.
Recast federal IRB requirements so that they grant IRBs greater
flexibility and hold them more accountable for results;
Strengthen continuing protections for human subjects participating
in research;
Enact federal requirements that help ensure that investigators and
IRB members are adequately educated about and sensitized to
humansubject protections;
Help insulate IRBs from conflicts that can compromise their
mission in protecting human subjects;
Recognize the seriousness of the workload pressures that many IRBs
face and take actions that aim to moderate them; and,
Reengineer the federal oversight process.
To facilitate the changes and recommendations made in the report
HHS and the FDA were strongly encouraged to "collaborate closely if HHS
as a whole is to respond effectively... We particularly urge that FDA
and NIH incorporate into their oversight specific lines of inquiry to
determine how well IRBs are actually protecting human subjects. This
would call for examining such matters as how the processes of
recruiting, selecting, and gaining informed consent from human subjects
actually work. It would also call for addressing verification efforts
to make sure that protocols are in fact submitted for review and that
approved protocols do not stray off course."
In conclusion, the report emphasized that "if IRBs are to meet the
significant challenges they face in the years ahead, they must become
more fully accountable to the public. Truth in the investigators
performing research is vitally important, but in itself is insufficient.
The IRBs and federal oversight agencies must find more effective and
open ways of verifying that the consumer protection mission of IRBs is
in fact being accomplished. This is especially important as the
research environment in which IRBs function becomes increasingly
commercialized."
The reports are available on the World Wide Web at:
<http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei>
or by calling the Boston Regional Office at (617) 5651050.
New Findings Show Behavioral Interventions Help Reduce HIV Infection
The National Institute of Mental Health has just released findings
of its Multisite HIV Prevention Trial in Science. The study of
behavioral interventions to reduce HIV risk behaviors was tested in a
random, controlled trial composed primarily of AfricanAmerican and
Hispanic participants who were single, unemployed and treated previously
for STDs. All were at high behavioral risk for HIV. Participants were
screened to meet certain eligibility criteria that included:
Having engaged in unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse in the past
90 days; and,
Having at least one of the following in the past 90 days: intercourse
with a new sexual partner, more than one sexual partner, a STD, a sexual
partner they knew had other sexual partners, or intercourse with an
injection drug user or a person infected with HIV.
Participants were randomly assigned to either a smallgroup,
sevensession HIV riskreduction program, or a control group that
attended a onehour AIDS education session. Compared with the 1,855
individuals in the control group, the 1,851 participants assigned to the
intervention program reported fewer unprotected sexual acts, higher
levels of condom use, and more consistent use of condoms during a
12month followup period. Some trial results include:
At three months, 42 percent of intervention recipients were
consistently using condoms or were abstinent even though none were
consistent condom users (or sexually abstinent) in the previous 90 days.
Condom use increased from 23 percent of all acts of intercourse at
baseline to 63 percent at three months and never declined below 60
percent in any subsequent followup.
At the twelve month followup, the mean number of acts of unprotected
intercourse in the 90 days before the interview, was 16.7 percent for
participants in the control group who had attended five or fewer
sessions and 11.2 for those who had attended six or all seven sessions.
The trial also provided evidence that the intervention reduced
disease outcomes. Participants who received the group intervention were
less likely to report syndromal STD symptoms through the followup
period. About one third (34.6 percent) of the control group members
reported experiencing STD symptoms at one or more followup points,
significantly higher than the rate of 27.9 percent among intervention
group members.
Study outcomes suggest that behavioral interventions can reduce
HIVrelated sexual risk behavior among lowincome women and men served
in public health settings. They also suggest that studies are needed
that test strategies for reducing sexual risk behavior over longer
periods of time, especially with populations that remain vulnerable to
HIV infection.
For more information contact, the Multisite Staff Collaboration,
National Institutes of Mental Health, NIH, Parklawn Building, Room
18101, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;
or refer to: The NIMH Multisite HIV Prevention Trial Group. "The NIMH
Multisite HIV Prevention Trial: Reducing HIV Sexual Behavior," Science,
vol. 280, June 19, 1998.
Source: "SHOP TALK" a publication on school health opportunities
and progress from SIECUSSexuality Information and Education Council
of the United States
October 9 is Deadline for Commenting on Proposed New Behavioral and
Social Science NIH Study Sections
The return of the former Alcohol,
Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration institutes to the National
Institutes of Health several years ago sparked a process of
reorganization of study sections in NIH's Center for Scientific Review
(CSR). Neuroscience sections were the first to reorganize. Through
most of this year a process has been underway to reorganize the
behavioral and social science sections. The currently proposed set of
sections together with descriptions of their scopes of coverage and
other information is to be found on the web at
<http://www.drg.nih.gov/review/bssreorg.htm>. Virginia Cain in the
Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research is managing the
process. Comments on the proposed arrangement should be sent to her at
this special Email address: <odbehavrev@od.nih.gov>. To date, about
120 comments have been received. The proposed sections will be further
refined during October based on the public comments, and the final
proposal will be presented to CSR in November. Application submissions
for the February, 1999 round of reviews will take place under the new
system. Members of current review panels have been asked to choose
which of the new panels each would like to join to continue their
service.
The proposal is to have fourteen study sections. Seven would deal
with aspects of basic research and seven with aspects of applied
research. For convenience, the sections have been divided into two
clusters of seven: Basic Behavioral Sciences (BBS) and Risk, Health,
and Social Sciences (RHSS). Below is the general description of the
scope of each proposed study section. If you are an NIH grantee, or
expect to become one, you should consider reviewing the proposed new
arrangement and offer constructive comments.
BBS1 reviews applications investigating basic biobehavioral processes
and adaptation across the lifespan. The study section primarily
considers research with nonhuman animals, but relevant work with humans
is also included. Both normal and disordered processes are addressed.
While the focus is on behavior, studies may also consider related
neural, hormonal, and genetic factors. Methodologies include (but are
not limited to) naturalistic observation, behavioral experiments,
pharmacologic interventions, and computational modeling.
BBS2 reviews applications focused on basic psychosocial and
biobehavioral processes governing affect (emotion, mood) and stress in
animals and humans. Studies focus on central, autonomic,
neuroendocrine, immune, genetic, experiential and lifespan developmental
processes, appraisal and coping processes, as well as studies of
attachment, wellbeing, hedonic processes, resilience and behavioral
expression. Studies of stress include both laboratoryinduced and
naturally occurring stressors.
BBS3 reviews applications investigating language and other types of
communication and their development across the lifespan, primarily in
humans. All forms of language and communication, both normal and
disordered, are considered. Also included is research concerned with
the development and evaluation of preventive and therapeutic
interventions for language and communication disorders. The focus is on
processes underlying performance by the individual, but research on
social/cultural factors is appropriate as long as it remains primarily
concerned with individual processes. Studies of nonhuman animals may
be included when these are directly relevant to understanding human
language and communication. Methodologies include (but are not limited
to) psychological experiments, linguistic and logical analyses,
computational modeling, neuroimaging (e.g., PET, fMRI), and
psychophysiological measurement (e.g., EEG, ERP).
BBS4 reviews applications investigating cognition and perception and
their development across the entire lifespan, primarily in humans. Both
normal and disordered forms of cognition and perception are considered.
Studies of nonhuman animals are appropriate when these are directly
relevant to understanding processes in humans. Also included are
studies of the influences of affect and of physical, social and cultural
contexts, provided that the emphasis remains on the nature of cognitive
and perceptual processes. Methodologies include (but are not limited
to) psychological experiments, mathematical and computational modeling,
neuroimaging (PET, fMRI, etc.), and psychophysiological measurement
(EEG, ERP, etc.).
BBS5 reviews applications relating to adultonset disorders of
cognition and affect. Emphasis is on the behavioral aspects of diseases
and conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, depression,
anxiety disorders, personality disorders, stroke, traumatic brain
injury, Alzheimer's disease. It also includes disorders of behavioral
regulation such as eating disorders, addictions, and sleep disorders.
The study section considers relevant investigations directed at
questions of etiology, diagnosis, course, and interventions for these
disorders.
BBS6 reviews applications addressing cognitive, behavioral, social and
neurobiological aspects of a broad range of developmental disorders
affecting infants, children, adolescents, and adults. Research reviewed
may include studies of highrisk infants, developmental disabilities
such as autism and mental retardation, brain injury, learning
disabilities, and ADHD. This study section also reviews applications
addressing disorders of behavioral and/or emotional regulation in
children and adolescents, including affective disorders, anxiety
disorders, conduct disorders, and childhood psychoses. A broad range of
potential issues may be addressed, including psychosocial and
environmental factors, genetics, brain mechanisms, treatment, affect and
emotion, developmental processes, outcome studies, drug abuse,
teratogens, cognitive mechanisms, and risk factors.
BBS7 reviews applications investigating normal and disordered motor
function, including speech and voice production. Function across the
entire lifespan, in humans and other animals, is addressed. Also
included is research concerned with the development and evaluation of
preventive and therapeutic interventions for movement, speech,
laryngeal, and related disorders. While the focus is on behavior,
studies may also consider associated anatomical, physiological, neural,
hormonal, and genetic factors. Methodologies include (but are not
limited to) behavioral experiments, physiological measurements, acoustic
analysis, imaging, and computational modeling.
RHSS1 reviews applications that focus on socialemotional development;
the identification of risk and protective factors, processes and models;
development and testing of preventive interventions and/or health
promotions across the life span. Social contexts of interest include
family relationships, intimate partner and marital relationships, social
networks, peer groups, schools, workplace, and health care settings.
Research on risk and protective factors and preventive interventions may
focus on alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse; violence and antisocial
behavior; domestic violence; psychopathology; highrisk sexual behavior;
unintended injury; academic underachievement; and other negative
outcomes and comorbid conditions. Studies aimed at health promotion
may include strategies such as individual behavior change, skills
training, social norm development and change, and health behavior
changes.
RHSS2 reviews macrolevel interventions and interventionrelated
research concerned with the prevention of a broad range of health risk
behaviors across the life span. Interventions focus on the modification
of health risk behaviors and healthrelated decision making through
environmental change and/or the use of social, organizational, and
political systems to reduce and prevent risk behaviors within the
general or select populations. These include changes in local, state,
and/or federal policies, laws, or regulations; communitybased
interventions; and interventions for organizations and institutions that
are major sources of environmental influence (e.g., workplaces; college
campuses; residential communities). Research reviewed includes studies
designed to develop and test theories or methods, as well as applied
studies designed to test interventions and dissemination of
interventions. Investigative methods may include: feasibility and
readiness studies; surveys; secondary data analyses; natural experiments
(i.e., studies of the effects and impact of social or environmental
changes not under the control of the investigator); and qualitative and
ethnographic approaches.
RHSS3 reviews applications of interactions between experiential,
behavioral, psychosocial, and physiological factors and conditions for
which individuals receive health care. Included are biobehavioral
approaches to treatment or management of physical diseases; study of
sequelae of disease; and biobehavioral aspects of affect, stress, pain,
symptom perception, social support, individual differences, and other
psychosocial traits or states related to pathology of somatic organs or
systems. Research applications may involve use of animal models of
specific disorders. Study of normal subjects is included when the
objective is to illuminate clinical or applied issues, usually in
comparison to clinical populations. Studies of behavioral phenotypes
related to such processes or interactions between genetic and behavioral
or environmental factors in the expression of behavioral phenotypes also
are included. Behavioral and pharmacological intervention studies are
included if they are specifically designed to investigate relationships
between basic psychosocial or biobehavioral variables and biological
bases of disease.
RHSS4 reviews proposals to study personality, motivational, and social
cognitive processes and their relation to mental and physical health and
alcohol; or drug abuse. Social, cultural, situational and experiential
effects and interactions are included, as are developmental approaches
including aging. Basic studies may include normative or risk processes
relevant to health outcomes across the lifespan.
RHSS5 reviews applications investigating the interrelationships between
socioenvironmental factors and the etiologies, course, prevalence, and
consequences of health, disorders, and disease. Included are studies
that focus on the integration or interaction of individual factors with
socioenvironmental factors across a wide range of outcomes including
physical and/or mental health, riskrelated and/or healthpromotion
behaviors, and normal functioning. Socioenvironmental factors are
defined to include factors such as culture, social structure,
institutions, geographic location, policy, and media. Also included are
epidemiologic studies of the incidence, prevalence, timing, intensity,
and duration of risk factors, health, disorder, and disease, and studies
using behavioral genetic designs to determine genetic and shared and
nonshared environmental influences. Research approaches may include
ethnographic and other qualitative methods; quantitative and
mixedmethod studies; crosssectional, longitudinal, or cohort
comparison designs as well as studies that focus on more than one period
or transition of the life course. Measurement of phenotypes, biological
outcomes and processes, as well as other individuallevel
characteristics and processes are included.
RHSS6 reviews applications on social, economic, and behavioral
antecedents and consequences of population processes, composition and
distribution. This includes studies of migration, mortality and health,
residential distribution, reproduction, labor force and retirement,
household and family structure, intergenerational relations,
biodemography in the U.S. and other countries, and the development and
validation of methodologies for population analysis, including
measurement, design, estimation and projection, formal demography,
qualitative and ethnographic methods, and statistical analysis.
RHSS7 reviews health services research studies that include
multidisciplinary investigations of factors including access,
organization, costs, quality, and financing of health services such as
ambulatory care, inpatient care, subacute care, and longterm care.
Studies can also focus on the antecedents and consequences of health
services utilization.
Several items are worthy of note as you consider these proposed
sections. The Center for Scientific Review plans to move more and more
toward selfreferral to study sections. Applicants have long complained
that their applications are sometimes sent to the wrong study section.
Now applicants can tell CSR where to send their application. To aid
researchers in making such a determination, the names of study section
members will be posted on the Internet. That process will not be
complete, however, by the February 1999 round of reviews because a
formal process for certifying new panel members is necessary. That
process will not be complete for all panelists by February. This means
that it may appear from the Internet listing that there are few people
on a study section. That would be a misinterpretation. As the process
gets started, it simply means that some members have not yet completed
the certification process and, therefore, cannot be posted as official
members of their study section.
In the future, no study section will be attached to a single
institute. In the past, knowledgeable applicants have understood that
if their application was referred to a particular study section, it
would automatically go to the institute connected with that study
section. In part, this change recognizes that with the growth of
multidisciplinary research, it is becoming more difficult, and less
meaningful, to sharply define the institutional home of a given
application. In fact, the following institutes participated in the
process that led to the proposed study sections listed above: the
National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Dental
Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
National Heart, Long and Blood Institute, National Institute of Nursing
Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
A process for monitoring the outcomes of the new study section
arrangement is being devised at CSR. The intent is to see whether the
reorganization treats the various categories of research fairly and also
to develop a means for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of the merit
review process. One aspect of the effort to even the playing field for
research across the sciences is that study sections will not longer have
names that suggest their scope of review. Instead, there will be
nondescriptive designations for each panel. A new opportunity and
burden will be placed on grant applicants because they will no longer
have to write their applications in a way that will assure their
assignment to a particular study section. They will be able to tell CSR
the study section to which their application should be assigned. But
that also means that researchers will need to become informed about who
sits on a given study section and what the intended scope of review of
that section happens to be. The default will remain that CSR will route
the application to the apparently appropriate panel, but CSR's
preference is that applicants take a handson approach to the referral
process.
A possible rough spot in the development process may occur next
year because the former ADAMHA institutes have chosen to retain reviews
of treatment and services applications inhouse. No other institutes at
NIH follow this practice. It is not clear at this time how a proposal
whose content overlaps a formerADAMHA institute and some other
institute will be handled. For example, there is complete overlap
between the smoking cessation programs at the National Cancer Institute
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. But NCI applications are
reviewed at CSR while NIDA applications, presumably, will go to NIDA.
The problem for NIH officials is going to be to determine how to route
such applications between the two forms of review.
Overlap in the proposed panels will be obvious to the observer. It
is intentional. In part, this was done so that current panelists would
have a place to send their own applications while they are serving on a
panel that would be reviewing their application were they not a member
of the panel. It also gives other applicants an option so that referral
may be made to the panel with the constellation of review
responsibilities that most nearly fit the application. There is,
nevertheless, some concern at NIH that the study sections may be too
broad. This is one of the questions that will be considered in the
monitoring activity under construction at CSR.
Another area of NIH uncertainty has to do with methodology. The
reader will notice that RHSS6 is partially devoted to applications
having to do with methodological development. Some hold that
methodology should never be separated from the research to which it is
relevant. Others contend that without a focus on methodology that is
apart from its associated applications, the development of new
methodologies will languish. How well this study section works will be
monitored especially closely.
Three other concerns for which there are no answers yet have to do
with diversity, behavior genetics, and lifespan research. In the case
of research having to do with special populations such as racial and
ethnic minorities, it appeared that many study sections could receive
applications whose focus might be on such populations. So there is no
particular emphasis in any study section on such work. The final draft
of study section scopes of review may make the receptivity to such
applications in many study sections more explicit. Behavior genetics,
likewise, plays some role in at least seven of the study sections, and
thus, it is also not made the clear responsibility of any one section.
NIH officers are not sure what the impact of this diffuse responsibility
will be until they can review the results of the first review round.
The other concern is that aging research and developmental research have
been melded together on several panels as lifespan research. This
arrangement may well track the trend in developmental and aging
research, but the impact it will have on those who do strictly infant
and child studies or those who do research strictly on aged individuals
is unknown.
As has been the practice at CSR since Ellie Ehrenfeld took the helm
there, changes in review are works in progress. No one expects that the
pattern of review that will take place in the February round will be the
final word on reorganization. That is why evaluation is being built
into CSR activities. The CSR staff plans to look carefully at what
works and does not work in the new arrangement and make adjustments as
warranted. In order to make changes that truly improve the reviews, CSR
needs to hear from you, both now as the new panels are taking shape and
next year when researchers, reviewers and NIH staff alike have had some
real experience with the new panels.
So please be a participant in improving the merit review process for
behavioral and social science.
Contact Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D.,
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research,
NIH, at od-behavrev@od.nih.gov.
Briefly Speaking/Upcoming Conferences
The Society for Neuroscience (SFN) will hold its 28th annual meeting
Nov. 712, 1998 at the Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA.
For more information contact, SFN, 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 500,
Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTN: Annual Meeting.
The 1998 Healthy People Consortium is holding its next meeting,
"Building the Next Generation of Healthy People," Nov. 1213, 1998 at
the Capitol Hilton, Washington, D.C. This meeting will focus on shaping
the national health objectives for the first decade of the new
millenniumHealthy People 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human
Services Secretary's Office of Public Health and Science is the sponsor
of this meeting. U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Julius Richmond is the
keynote speaker on Thursday, Nov. 12. Meetings and breakout groups will
discuss Healthy People 2000 Goals and the national health agenda for
Healthy People 2010. Representatives from federal agencies within the
U.S. HHS Dept. will lead and participate in discussions. For more
information contact, Ms. Miryam Granthon, Office of Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion, (202) 6906245 or the Social and Health Services,
Ltd. (meeting support contractor), 18003674725.
The Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the
National Research Council will hold a research conference on racial
trends in the United States on October 15 and 16, 1998. The conference
will take place in the auditorium of the National Academy of Sciences at
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Registration forms may
be obtained from Margo Cullen at the Conference on Racial Trends in the
United States, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW,
HA 156H, Washington, D.C. 20418.
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological
and Cognitive Sciences
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 200024242
TEL (202) 3365920
FAX (202) 3365953
federation@apa.org
http://www.am.org/federation
-- Cheers MikeDr. Michael C. Neale Dept. of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University Phone: 804-828-3369 Virginia Institute for Psychiatric & Behavioral Genetics Fax: 804-828-8801 800 East Leigh St. Suite 1-115, Richmond VA 23219-1534