FINAL FY 2010 APPROPRIATIONS

The following chart posts the final FY 2010 appropriations figures for selected key agencies that support social and behavioral science research.  Most of these come from the Consolidated Appropriations Act Congress passed in mid-December.  Others, such as Agriculture and Homeland Security are from their individual appropriations bills enacted earlier in 2009.  The numbers are in millions.

On December 4, 2009, National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins convened his first and the 99th meeting of Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD).    Collins began by noting the "wild ride" he has been on since his confirmation.  He noted the many personnel changes that need addressing. This includes a search for his replacement at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). 

In the meantime, he has appointed Eric Green as Acting Director of NHGRI.  Green is currently the NHGRI scientific director and director of the NHGRI Division of Intramural Research.  NIH also seeks permanent directors for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).  NHGRI's Deputy Director Alan Guttmacher is currently serving as the Acting Director of NICHD, following the brief stint as Acting Director by Susan Shurin. (Shurin, who is the Deputy Director for NHLBI, has return to the institute to serve Acting Director following the departure of Betsy Nabel, who stepped down at the end of November and is now at Brigham Young University. 

Collins also remarked that searches continue for permanent directors of the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), the Office of Extramural Research (OER), and the NIH Office of Budget whose director John Bartrum has moved to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.  Directors are also needed for NIH Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis (OPLA), and the NIH Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, all within the office of the NIH Director.   Collins indicated that he is nearing making an appointment for OLPA. Collins shared his vision with the members of the ACD.

Science and Healthcare Reform

Barabara L. Wolf of the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the former director of its Institute on Poverty expressed her excitement regarding Collins' discussion about using science to examine healthcare reform, especially its affect on   health disparities. She asked whether there are larger opportunities for investigations to learn much more about what prevention strategies work as well as what kind of delivery models reduce disparities.  Noting that the nation is currently in a period of high unemployment and the accompanying poverty, Wolf noted that these are targeted opportunities, which require planning right now and research designs that need development before some of the reform takes place. 

Collins agreed and noted that there is a window of opportunity that will not remain open indefinitely.  He thinks that health disparities is an area that all of the institutes and centers (ICs) perceive as a high priority.  Those already invested in research programs related to health disparities are attempting to craft the kinds of protocols that will provide answers.

Workforce Issues

The discussion also included a comment by ACD member Thomas Kelly of the Sloan-Kettering Institute regarding workforce issues.  Kelly noted that scientific community has no idea whether currently implemented training programs are working.  He suggested that a working group of the ACD should examine what the future of the scientific workforce should look like.  "I think we should look at this issue in a deeper and in a more quantitative way and try to do some modeling in order to make decisions about what science should like in this country 20 years from now,"  said Kelly.  Collins agreed with him. 

Keith Yamamoto of the University of California, San Francisco also questioned whether NIH should re-examine the goals of graduate training.  What is the intellectual product, the creative product that graduate training should be endeavoring to produce as it endpoints?  How much are we putting into our programs now really moves to that product?  He noted that postdoctoral work is extending to as long as five or six additional years.  Yamamoto submitted that academia has never looked at post-doctoral training as an educational imperative.  

The meeting also included a discussion of NIH comparative effectiveness research, stem cell policy, neglected and rare diseases, and a director's report by Linda Birnbaum director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.  The videocast of the meeting can be found at http://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp?c=39.

Collins Warmly Received On Capitol Hill

On December 2, 2009, Capitol Hill welcomed National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins at reception.  A number of members of Congress were in attendance, including Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Judd Gregg (R-NH), as well as Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA), Brian Bilbray (D-CA), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), James Langevin (D-RI), Sander Levin (D-MI),  Dennis Moore (D-KS) Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Cliff Stearns (R-FL).   Capitol Hill staff, NIH Institute and Center directors, research community representatives, patient advocacy and education organizations were also in attendance.  COSSA cosponsored and attended the event. 

Master of Ceremonies, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan reflected on Collins' many achievements, particularly in the field of genomics. Collins thanked the biomedical research community for their warm welcome.  In his remarks, he described his priorities and the opportunities he sees for biomedical, behavioral, and social science research. Collins also emphasized the need for NIH and the scientific community to work with Congress to advance research and health, especially given the budgetary challenges NIH currently faces, maintaining the momentum that has been afforded by the resources provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

PRESIDENT'S CALL TO ACTION:  'EDUCATE TO INNOVATE'

In 2009, President Obama launched an "Educate to Innovate" campaign designed to improve the participation and performance of America's students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The campaign was designed to include efforts not only from the federal government but also from leading companies, foundations, non-profits, and science and engineering societies to work with young people across America to excel in science and math.  When announcing the initiative, the Administration explained that as a part of the campaign, it hoped to do a series of events, announcements and other activities that build upon the President's "call to action" and address the key components of this national priority.

Leaders from private companies and universities, foundations and non-profits, and organizations representing millions of scientists, engineers, and teachers from across America are supporting the campaign, according to the White House.  The initial commitment of the private sector has been than $260 million.

Obama stressed that the key to meeting the challenges before America, "improving our health and well-being, to harnessing clean energy, to protecting our security, and succeeding in the global economy, will be reaffirming and strengthening America's role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation.  And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators.  And that's why education in math and science is so important."

At that time, he also announced that he plans to have an annual science fair at the White House with the winners of national competitions in science and technology. "Scientists and engineers ought to stand side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models, and here at the White House we're going to lead by example.  We're going to show young people how cool science can be," said the President. 

Obama went further:  "We're going to expand opportunities for all our young people - including women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields, but who are no less capable of succeeding in math and science and pursuing careers that will help improve our lives and grow our economy.  I also want to note that this is only the beginning."

On January 6, 2010 the President invited the winners of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) to the White House.  PAEMST is a program administered by NSF for the White House. Awards are made annually to outstanding pre-college-level science and math teachers from across the country.  The winners are selected by a panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians and educators following an initial selection process done at the state level. Each year, the award alternates, going either to science and math teachers in grades K through 6 (as it is this year) or to those teaching in grades 7 through 12.  The President applauded the awardees for "inspiring and educating a new generation in math and science." 

While the event honored teachers and mentors, Obama stressed that it is not their responsibility alone.  "All of us have a role to play in building an education system worthy of our children and ready to help us seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of the 21st century."  Obama also emphasized the need to look further than the mentors honored at the January 6 ceremony.  He called on the "200,000 scientists who work for the federal government to do their part in their communities:  to speak at schools, to create hands-on learning opportunities through efforts like National Lab Day, and to help stoke that same curiosity in students which perhaps led them to pursue a career in science in the first place."

On January 7, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it will award nearly $18.3 million (22 awards) to researchers over a two-year period in support of research designed to strengthen and enhance efforts to attract young people to biomedical and behavioral science careers and to improve science literacy in adults and children.  NIH director Francis Collins stressed that "attracting the best and brightest students in science and medical careers is critical to developing a workforce capable of addressing the emerging and complex challenges in biomedical research."  These awards reflect the Obama Administration's coordinated effort to improve science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education (see other story).  "STEM education has the added value of advancing scientific literacy, a high priority for our nation," Collins added.

NIH funded the majority of these grants through the NIH Common Fund. The Common Fund, enacted into law by Congress through the 2006 NIH Reform Act, supports cross-cutting, trans-NIH programs with a particular emphasis on innovation and risk taking.  The research will support STEM education in areas of greatest national need and address issues of equity in STEM competencies across racial, cultural and economic barriers.

The research will examine the:  the efficacy of educational approaches toward promoting STEM competencies; teacher preparation development programs to support effective STEM teaching and informal science education; innovative approaches to STEM education; and identification of practices that overcome equity issues in STEM learning.

BREAST CANCER AND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS DISCUSSED AT NIH DECEMBER OBSSR LECTURE SERIES

On December 17, 2009 Sarah Gehlert presented her research on "Breast Cancer and Social Interactions:  Identifying Multiple Environments that Regulate Gene Expression, as part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research's (OBSSR) lecture series. 

Gehlert is the E. Desmond Lee Professor of Racial and Ethnic Diversity at the Brown School and a scholar at Washington University's Institute for Public Health.  Her presentation was based on her work as principal investigator and director for the Interdisciplinary Health Disparities Research (CIHDR) at the University of Chicago.  Her research explores why the mortality rate for breast cancer is higher for black women versus white women. CIHDR is one of eight centers funded in 2003 through the NIH's Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities initiative.

Gehlert described the use of a transdisciplinary research model to examine the potential relation of genes, hormones, psychological factors, social circumstances, and community and neighborhood factors to mammary gland tumor development.  CIHDR, she noted, is comprised of social workers, psychologists, physicians, oncologists, biologists, and civil engineers working on four intertwined research projects.  The projects establish the connection of social circumstances to biological outcomes of breast cancer in black women by reviewing animal and human models at the genetic, hormonal, psychological, social, environmental, and population levels. The central question for each of the projects is why, despite the fact that white women are more likely to develop breast cancer; African American women are more likely to die from the disease.

CIHDR uses a novel model "based on identifying each link in a downward causal chain from the population or social to the disease or genetic level."  According to Gehlert, the chain starts at the top with race, poverty, disruption, and neighborhood crime, moves to isolation, acquired vigilance, and depression; then to stress-hormone dynamics; and finally to cell survival and tumor development.  The CIHDR model, while not the only disease-specific model of health factors, Gehlert explained, is unique in its ability to demonstrate important links among those factors.   It emphasizes downward causation, in which upstream determinants at the social and environmental levels influence and regulate events at lower levels of organization from individual behavior and physiology to the cellular and genetic interactions of health and disease.

She pointed out some of the challenges that transdisciplinary researchers' face as a result of working outside of their discipline with researchers from different backgrounds.  These challenges include such issues as the lack of uniform research process skills, disincentives from academic institutions, and a desire to adhere to the knowledge base of one's discipline.  Such challenges can breed distrust and conflict among those participating in the research project. Gehlert described the four interdependent projects that make up CIHDR and are designed to determine the causal links through which genetic mechanisms are regulated by the social environment.

Project 1 looks at the development of mammary tumors and the ovarian function of group-living rats that have been socially isolated.  As group-living rats were isolated during various points in their lives, they showed signs of increased stress-hormone levels, hyper-vigilance and did not explore or seek out food in their cage.  Even after returning to the group, the isolated rats' interactions were impaired and stress levels remained elevated.  Subsequently, these isolated rats were 84 times more likely to have mammary tumors than the non-isolated rats.  This suggests are strong link between elevated stress and isolation and tumor development.  The use of animal models, Gehlert noted, adds to the investigators' understanding of the determinants of health disparities by allowing manipulation of social conditions using experiments and provides a perspective on gene/environment interactions throughout the lifecycle.

Project 2 explores the exposures prior to diagnoses, social environment, and psychological risk factors for black breast cancer patients in the south side of Chicago and Nigeria.  Results show similarities between BRCA-1 related breast cancer (a mutation of the BRCA-1 gene that leads to early breast onset breast cancer) and the tumors of black women.  Using what is described as the McClintock mode developed from Project 1 that identifies an increase in tumor growth as a result of social isolation, the researchers determined that social factors, such as depression, assault, and loneliness cause a constant increase of stress hormones, which leads to the alteration of pathways that lead to BCRA-1 mutations and early onset of breast cancer.

Project 3 uses a community-based participatory research (CBPR) model to explore the views of African-American women in south side Chicago undergoing treatment for breast cancer.  It tests the validity of the McClintock model through examination of the neighborhood and community factors, living situations, social connectedness, behavioral responses, and biological and health outcomes of the patients to determine possible correlations. Results show that women who are exposed to more negative factors resulting in social isolation also have increased stress hormone levels and other biological factors that facilitate tumor growth. 

Project 4 evaluates the rate of mammary tumor growth, responses to chemotherapy, and chemoprevention in relation to varying stress levels using two types of rats.  Current results support the hypothesis that stress from social isolation increases the rate of mammary tumor growth, increases a tumor's resistance to chemotherapy, and decreases the susceptibility of mammary glands to chemoprevention in both types of rats.

Gehlert noted that future CIHDR projects will evaluate the outcomes of social and biological interventions to determine the downstream effect of social intervention on health outcomes at biological level.  

(Briana Walters of the National Association of Social Workers contributed to this story.)

NIH DIRECTOR'S OPPORTUNITY FOR RESEARCH PROGRAM ESTABLISHED

Using resources provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established the "NIH Director's Opportunity for Research in Five Thematic Areas" designed to support projects that address research in specific areas that will benefit from significant three-year funds without the expectation of continued NIH funding beyond this period.   Research supported is expected to have high short-term impact, and "a high likelihood of enabling growth and investment in biomedical research and development, public health, and health care delivery."  

The five areas align with the opportunities identified by NIH director Francis Collins

(see Update, Sept 14, 2009 ) are: 

Applying Genomics and Other High Throughput Technologies:  In the past, many basic biomedical science projects were limited in scope to some aspect of genetics, cell biology, or physiology.  The revolution now sweeping the field is the ability to be comprehensive.

Translating Basic Science Discoveries into New and Better Treatments:  Armed with a wealth of basic science discoveries and an understanding of the pathophysiology of various diseases, we are embarking on the next frontier in designing new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. 

Using Science to Enable Health Care Reform:  Quality, affordable health care for all Americans cannot occur without significant advances in the underlying science that will enable effective and efficient disease prevention and diagnosis, as well as the identification of better and cheaper treatments.  Clinical research targeted toward health disparities, social and behavioral factors, large-scale prospective population cohort analysis, comparative effectiveness, cost-effective prevention and personalized medicine, and pharmacogenomics will allow us to assess and mitigate disease risks, predict outcome and optimize treatment.  Health services research that includes health information technology and health research economics will enhance the safety, quality and efficiency of the health care delivery system, as well as facilitate health promotion.

Focusing on Global Health:  The NIH has a long tradition of supporting the discovery phase of solutions to major global health challenges, and recent scientific advances in genomics, small molecule screening technologies, and vaccine development portend the possibility of further major impacts on some of the most challenging and harmful diseases worldwide.  This theme encourages a greater focus on global health and new emphasis on formulating prevention and intervention strategies to tackle a number of infectious and parasitic diseases, chronic non-communicable diseases and injuries, and other neglected diseases striking the developing world, with the goal to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with these diseases worldwide.

Reinvigorating the Biomedical Research Community:  The lifeblood of biomedical research in the United States rests upon the talent and dedication of its scientists and the support of innovative research.  This theme encourages investigators to cultivate new collaborations and to assemble multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary teams in conducting innovative research on the most challenging biomedical and behavioral areas.   The goal is to strengthen our research capacity, to broaden our research base and to enhance cross-fertilization of disciplines by recruiting new investigators and new expertise into the research community, and by developing and retaining these talents in a collaborative environment that fosters creativity and exploration. 

Letters of Intent are due on February 15, 2010.  Applications are due March 15, 2010.   For more information or to apply see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-10-005.html.

NIAMS SEEKS COMMENTS ON ITS LONG-RANGE RESEARCH PLAN            

The National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) is seeking comments on its current version of the NIAMS Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2014 Long-Range Research Plan. According to NIAMS director Steve Katz, the plan is designed to "serve as a broad scientific outline for the NIAMS by identifying compelling research opportunities and needs that will inform [the Institute's] priority-setting process, while enabling the Institute to adapt to the rapidly changing biomedical and behavioral science landscapes. Over time, it will help propel research progress related to the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and, ultimately, prevention of arthritis, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases."  Katz acknowledges that the plan is "not comprehensive and that not all research areas were able to be addressed."

The NIAMS Long-Range Plan for FY 2010-2014 cover the five areas of  the Institute's broad mission:  Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases; Skin Biology and Diseases; Bone Biology and Diseases; Muscle Biology and Diseases; and Musculoskeletal Biology and Diseases. It is noted in the Plan's executive summary, "shifts in modern science have brought to light the importance of acknowledging trans-disciplinary areas and approaches. Many of the complex diseases and conditions relevant to the NIAMS mission can be seen through a new lens using genome-wide analyses, novel behavioral/biopsychosocial research methods, systems biology approaches, and new imaging modalities."

Four cross-cutting areas, highlighting needs and opportunities that are relevant to many of our research communities have been selected:  Health Disparities, Infrastructure, Training and Career Development, and Information Dissemination and Outreach.  Below are the sections of the Plant that addresses behavioral and biopsychosocial research under arthritis and rheumatic diseases, and skin and biology diseases.

Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases: Behavioral and Biopsychosocial Research Understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, and outcomes of rheumatic diseases, and developing effective strategies for their prevention and treatment, requires a multifaceted approach. These endeavors necessitate collaborative research efforts that integrate approaches and perspectives from multiple disciplines.

Biomedical research in the rheumatic diseases continues to yield important discoveries regarding genetic, immunologic, and other biological factors in these conditions. Behavioral and social science research are contributing important epidemiologic information and approaches to managing the distressing symptoms of these disorders (see box below).

However, studies integrating behavioral, basic biomedical, and clinical rheumatology perspectives have been extremely limited to date. The potential of the behavioral and social sciences and a biopsychosocial approach to advance research in the rheumatic diseases has not been fully realized. Interdisciplinary investigations that integrate behavioral and biomedical sciences will likely enhance treatment of these diseases, reduce disability, and may shed light on the complex mechanisms involved in disease processes. 

Broad areas of potential research directions include:

1. Biobehavioral

• Define genetic and environmental influences on behaviors relevant to health and disease.
• Investigate the central nervous system-endocrine-immune interactions that contribute to disease mechanisms and clinical symptoms.
• Explore cognition and cognitive dysfunction in rheumatic diseases, including the use of brain imaging and assessment of relationships between cognition, mood disturbance, and disease activity.
• Use biopsychosocial approaches to understand gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in clinical disease, symptom perception and management, and interactions with health-care systems.
• Generate theoretical models for the potential influence of stress on disease course and presentation (e.g., symptom flares). Research the influence of stress management techniques and interventions on illness, and study potential mechanisms of stress-illness effects.
• Study fatigue in the rheumatic diseases, focusing on epidemiological issues, potential mechanisms, prevention, and treatment.
• Investigate sleep disturbances and their relationship to disease process, symptoms, and disability in rheumatic diseases.
• Address issues in pediatric rheumatology, including pain, psychosocial adjustment, physical functioning, and intervention.
• Develop animal models to elucidate biobehavioral mechanisms in rheumatic diseases.

2. Therapies

• Conduct studies on the management of chronic symptoms, such as itch, fatigue, and pain.
• Investigate placebo responses to pain and treatment, and the impact of catastrophizing and individual pain experiences in disease management and treatment response.
• Explore integrative and complementary therapies, such as biofeedback, relaxation, mind-body interactions, cognitive behavioral therapy, and exercise.
• Investigate the role of non-pharmacological treatments and combined individual, group, and technology-based interventions for the self-management and improvement of health-related behaviors.

3. Psychosocial

• Study the biological, social, and behavioral interactions as they relate to disease onset, progression, and outcomes.
• Define the effect of systemic and societal influences on disease progression, treatment response, quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes in rheumatic diseases.
• Study the variability in patient outcomes, related to differences in behavior, gender, ethnicity, family environment, prior trauma, education, physiology, or a combination of factors.
• Explore behavioral factors that influence patient interactions with providers, and how this experience affects treatment response and long-term outcomes.
• Examine psychosocial prevention and intervention models from other disorders (e.g., diabetes, AIDS), for the promotion of healthy behaviors and management strategies for people/patients with rheumatic diseases.

Skin Biology and Diseases: Behavioral and Biopsychosocial Research

• Environmental triggers of many skin diseases, such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun for skin cancer, are modifiable risk factors. These risk factors underscore the role of behavior as a contributor to disease and create the opportunity for prevention and intervention through behavior modification. Mortality is a rare outcome for the majority of skin diseases, but discomfort from wounds and itching can have tremendous impact on patients' quality of life and behavior. Patients with disfigurement from skin diseases are frequently affected by psychosocial problems due to social stigmas.
• Broad areas of potential research directions include:
• Explore measures, including behavioral modification and protective strategies, to prevent skin exposure to ultraviolet radiation, which has adverse effects during teenage years and cumulatively in aging populations.
• Conduct behavioral and psychobiology studies that have the potential to improve understanding of the mechanisms of skin disease.
• Study the mechanisms by which stress affects skin disease progression, and how stress management techniques and interventions impact disease outcomes and response to therapy.
• Determine how the placebo effect influences disease outcome and response to therapy.
• Investigate the management of chronic symptoms, such as itching and pain, as well as ways to minimize the effect of these symptoms on sleep and overall quality of life.
• Use biopsychosocial approaches to understand how gender and/or ethnic and/or socioeconomic differences influence clinical disease outcomes, symptom perception and management, and interactions of patients with the health-care system.
• Incorporate use of patient-reported outcomes instruments into clinical trials in skin diseases, to assess the effects of therapy on disease-specific quality of life.
• The Skin Biology and Diseases programs at the NIAMS cover basic, translational, and clinical research in skin, including work on the developmental and molecular biology of skin, the study of skin as an immune organ, and autoimmune, inflammatory, and genetic diseases of skin. These fundamental research findings contribute to the development of tools for clinical diagnosis, therapeutics, and disease management strategies.

The entire Plan is posted (http://www.niams.nih.gov/About_Us/Mission_and_Purpose/draft_long_range_plan.asp) and is available for public comment through January 15, 2010.

GOVERNING MEMBERS

American Association for Public Opinion Research
American Economic Association
American Educational Research Association
American Historical Association
American Political Science Association
American Psychological Association
American Society of Criminology
American Sociological Association
American Statistical Association
Association of American Geographers
Association of American Law Schools
Law and Society Association
Linguistic Society of America
Midwest Political Science Association
National Communication Association
Population Association of America
Rural Sociological Society
Society for Research in Child Development
 

  

MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
American Association for Agricultural Education
Association for Asian Studies
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Association of Academic Survey Research Organizations
Association of Research Libraries
American Psychosomatic Society
Council on Social Work Education
Eastern Sociological Society
International Communication Association
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Midwest Sociological Society
National Association of Social Workers
North American Regional Science Council
North Central Sociological Association
Social Science History Association
Society for Behavioral Medicine
Society for Research on Adolescence
Society for Social Work and Research
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Southern Political Science Association
Southern Sociological Society
Southwestern Social Science Association

 

CENTERS AND INSTITUTES 
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
American Council of Learned Societies
American Institutes for Research
Brookings Institution
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
Institute for Women's Policy Research
National Bureau of Economic Research
National Opinion Research Center
Population Reference Bureau
Social Science Research Council