House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on 'Broadening Participation in STEM'

On March 16, the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing to examine and discuss the institutional and cultural barriers to broadening the participation in the STEM disciplines, efforts to overcome these barriers at both "mainstream and minority serving institutions," and the role that Federal agencies can play in supporting these efforts.  Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), subbing for Subcommittee Chairman Rep.Dan Lipinski (D-IL), welcomed witnesses and opened the hearing explaining that it was an effort by the Subcommittee to get "a better understanding of the unique obstacles faced by individuals from different, racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds."   She observed that the Subcommittee is in the process of examining "the state of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) programs authorized under the 2007 COMPETES Act, with the goal of strengthening the NSF's research and education missions, including programs related to broadening participation." NSF and COMPETES are up for reauthorization this year.

Fudge pointed out that it is stated often that we, "as a nation, need to produce more scientists and engineers, as well as a more STEM-literate workforce to fill a growing number of technical jobs.  But we will find it much more difficult to develop the well-trained STEM workforce we need if we continue to overlook significant portions of the talent pool," she emphasized.

Shirley M. Malcom, head of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources at theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science and a former member of the COSSA Board, agreed with Fudge's assessment, citing evidence underscoring the lack of diversity in the scientific workforce and stressed that it "is an important policy issue that deserves national attention."  Malcom reported that women, in 2006, received nearly "58 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded in the U.S. and 51 percent of the bachelor's degrees awarded collectively in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM fields."  Their representation in STEM ranged from highs of more than 77 percent in psychology and almost 62 percent in the biological sciences to lows of 19.4 percent and 20.2 percent, respectively, for engineering and computer science.   

Malcom suggested looking at trends over time, noting that "broad field designations can hide a multitude of sins."  She cited as an example the fact that representation in the physical sciences is driven by increases in chemistry, where women received almost 52 percents of bachelor's degrees in 2006, compared to physics, where women received less than 21 percent.  She further noted that in the social sciences, women received about 31 percent of the bachelor's degrees in economics and 70 percent of such degrees in sociology in 2006.

"Un-packing the numbers" is also critical to understanding the participation of minorities in STEM, Malcom testified, and noted that underrepresented minorities are as likely to be present among the STEM bachelor's pool as they are among the pool for all fields.  In 2006 African Americans received 9.1 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded and 8.7 percent of STEM bachelor's degrees, this while representing 12.4 percent of the U.S. population.   Hispanics received 8.1 percent of bachelor's degrees and 8 percent of STEM bachelor's degrees.  American Indians/Alaskan Natives received 0.7 percent of all degrees and 0.7 percent of STEM bachelor's degrees.  Conversely, Malcom pointed out that Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are more likely to be in the STEM pool in greater numbers than their representation among all bachelor's degree recipients in 2006, 9.7 percent versus 6.7 percent, respectively.  At the same time, White, non-Hispanic degree recipients received 67.2 percent of STEM bachelor's degree and 69.7 percent of bachelor's degree recipients for all fields.  She argued, however, "that this represents a declining proportion of degree recipients over the past decade, while the reverse is true for all other groups."

The present level of underrepresented minorities is being driven by women, Malcom observed, noting that underrepresented minority males are under-participating in all fields, including STEM. She reiterated the point that "broad fields hide wide variations of participation." For Hispanics in the social sciences, the 10.3 percent of bachelor's degree in 2006 conceals the differences in participation between economics, where they represented fewer than six percent of degree recipients, and sociology, where they received more than 10 percent of bachelor's degrees, she explained.   Malcom also highlighted the lack of data on participation for persons with disabilities, claiming this makes it difficult to paint a clear picture of the presence of this population within STEM education or workforce and to identify field-specific obstacles.

Hearing  witness Alicia C. Dowd, Professor of Education at the University of Southern California, shared her research findings with the Subcommittee.  She noted that "currently we are experiencing a loss of talent from STEM, each year as African American, Latina and Latino, and American Indian students start their college studies as STEM majors, but then leave those fields at high rates."  Dowd discussed the value of NSF funding as it relates to: 1) student services, academic support programs, and curricular reform; and 2) scholarships and fellowships.  She raised concerns that current approaches do not address the fundamental problem of negative racial climates in STEM classrooms and programs. 

Dowd pointed out that NSF currently funds special programs at community colleges and four-year institutions that aim to increase the number of students earning STEM degrees by providing enhanced study services and academic advising.  She observed, however, the most common program designs implemented by the NSF grantees are not informed by studies of the racial climate of STEM classrooms and programs.  Dowd emphasized that recent "research documents that racial stigma and discrimination create significant barriers to participation of underrepresented racial-ethnic groups in STEM. . .Programs that do not address the fundamental problem of negative racial climate in STEM fields are, therefore, unlikely to have a substantial impact to increase diversity," she stressed.

Dowd emphasized that to encourage diversity and active learning in STEM we must invest in bold experiments in curriculum and pedagogical reform that are informed by the principles of culturally responsive pedagogy.  Priority, she stressed, should be given to initiatives that include a focus on mathematics education in real world problem solving and should involve people from multiple scientific, social science, and educational research disciplines.  She also noted that the methods of benchmarking can create a more comprehensive evaluation system that measures program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, student outcomes, faculty development, and changes in organizational polices. 

Associate Professor of Astronomy at Vanderbilt University Keivan Guadalup Stassun, discussed the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's to Ph.D. Bridge Program.  According to Stassun, the program is flexible and individualized to the goals and needs of each student.  "Courses are selected to address gaps in undergraduate preparation, and research experiences are provided that allow students to develop and demonstrate their full scientific talent and potential," he explained.  The Bridge program's basic design and structure --  a "bridge" from the master's degree at an HBCU to the Ph.D. at a major research  university -- is based on research on the educational pathways the underrepresented minorities in STEM follow en route to the doctorate, he explained. 

NIH's Scientific Management Review Board Holds Third Meeting

On March 10, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) held its third meeting.  The NIH Reform Act of 2006 which created the SMRB requires it to hold five meetings before making any recommendations for change to the NIH.  At its inaugural meeting the SMRB created three working groups:  1) Deliberating Organizational Change and Effectiveness Working Group (DOCE); 2) NIH Intramural Research Program Working Group; and 3) Substance Use, Abuse, and Addiction Working Group (see Update, November 23, 2009).  The working groups provided updates regarding their progress towards coming up with recommendations for consideration by the full SMRB.  NIH director Francis Collins remarked that he has been getting regular briefings from the chairs of the Working Groups and indicated that the level of communication was gratifying. He also observed that he has asked the Board to begin considering what additional topics it should consider.

Deliberating Organizational Change and Effectiveness

William Brody, President of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and chair of the DOCE Working Group, explained that his group examined what are the circumstances under which an organization might contemplate change and the principles that would guide the change.  According to Brody, DOCE met with former NIH directors and heard a familiar set of themes including resounding support for the NIH and the complexity of its mission going from basic science to health.  The overarching theme, said Brody, is the changing nature of service and the need for increased collaboration within NIH, across other federal agencies, and internationally.  He reported that there has been much discussion by DOCE surrounding the issue of balancing basic science and translational research.  Rapid changes in discovery and innovation might require some nimbleness on part of the NIH.  He further observed that as difficult as change is to effect in an academic institution, the NIH is even more complex because it has a larger external constituency.

Brody discussed organizational change and the degrees of change.  There is structural change, he explained, where you change reporting relationships.  He noted, however, that society views a restructuring as successful but this does not necessarily change the effectiveness of the organization. On the other hand, incremental change makes it too easy for an organization to move back to where it was, he cautioned.  Change also has to be of sufficient magnitude to justify the energy expended, he indicated.  Likewise, sufficient resources are needed to improve the agency's ability to fulfill its mission.  It is critical to identify those resources.

Brody pointed out that the NIH uses a number of metrics:  scientific, health, economic, return on investment, producing an educated workforce, to measure success.  At the same time, the "science community looks at the NIH as the National Institute of Science."  NIH's mission is to improve the health of the world, a very broad mission, Brody warned. It also has a mission to enhance and promote economic well-being and insure a high return on investment in public research which is important, but more difficult to measure. 

The Working Group has arrived at a set of guiding principles, steps and coordination for change.  The guiding principles include:  Strengthen the ability of NIH to carry out its mission in advancing science and improving public health; Provide an environment that allows more effective collaboration, coordination, and interaction across all disciplines to advance the pace of scientific discovery and improve health; Create synergies of the scientific and/or clinical foundations for discovery and translation; Enhance the public understanding, confidence, and support for  science and the impact on public health; and Increase operational efficiency and ensure a high return on public investment in biomedical research.

According to DOCE, there are three steps in the underlying process:  1) What is the need for change?  2) What is the option for change? and 3) How do we navigate the jungle of NIH's constituents (internal, external, political and social).   Brody stressed that any change contemplated needs the full buy-in of the NIH director and will require the time and effort of the director to implement that change.  

Assessing the need for change, he asserted, is another matter.  Any option for change requires a look at the risk vs. benefit, said Brody.  Is the benefit of affecting change worth the risk (reputational, scientific, and organizational), he posited.  There are spectrums of options from merging perspective scientific programs, creating blueprints that are crosscutting, merging existing institutes with existing missions, or merging existing institutes to create a new institute with a new mission that transcends the missions of their individual missions, he explained.

Indicating that there is not a broad demarcation between structural and functional change, Brody noted that it is a dynamic process that could start with functional initiatives and it could end up with significant organizational change.  The rationale for undertaking significant structural change should include a higher likelihood of significant benefits. At the same time, the process does not address the willingness of Congress and the NIH constituency to come in and dictate new structural change for NIH, he pointed out.   He contended that every change process requires a champion and supporters.  The ultimate success depends on transparency, communication, and accountability, adding that these things are easy to write but difficult to effect.He reported that the DOCE Working Group is in the process of circulating a draft report to the full Board for feedback and it intends to discuss the report at the next meeting.

Arthur Rubenstein of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine noted that it is easier to make a change in a crisis and the problem is that most people think the NIH is working pretty well.  National Institute of General Medical Sciences director Jeremy Berg added that an important ingredient is the "clarity of purpose."  If you can't answer that, the pushback will be paralyzing, said Berg. Rubenstein cautioned that metrics are not reasonable in saying if we do this, it will happen.  Former NASA administrator Dan Golden cautioned the Board to "beware of metrics."  "If you press metrics too hard you will crush the flame of innovation."

Substance Use, Abuse, and Addiction:  'Status Quo Is Not Ideal'

William Roper, Dean of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Chair of the Substance Use, Abuse, and Addiction (SUAA) Working Group, presented the collective views of the group.  According to Roper, SUAA had met in 13 sessions, both in person and electronically.  Roper began by noting that the Working Group understands that substance use, abuse and addiction work is related to the overall work of the SMRB.  He observed that some people view the Working Group's work as a prototype for other activities the SMRB might take on. SUAA is anxious to learn what the DOCE Working Group is doing and sees it as a prototype for larger and/or activities, Roper stated.  He indicated that the SUAA is also anxious to pay particular attention to the issue in this sector and to be sure that the people in that research community see them as unique.

Providing the context for deliberations, Roper explained that according to SUAA, the question is: Considering both biological differences and similarities, does the current organization separating research institutes on drug and alcohol use, abuse and addiction provide optimal infrastructure for supporting these areas of scientific research?  This also includes a social and political context:  The establishment of the SMRB to advise NIH on the use of organizational authorities in the NIH Reform Act of 2006; the 2003 National Academies report recommending consideration of a merger of the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Addiction (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), an option identified by the Lewin Group in 1988; and the 2001 Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act which required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to request an Institute of Medicine study to determine whether combining NIDA and NIAAA would strengthen scientific research efforts and increase economic efficiency (to date the study has not been conducted).

According to the chair, SUAA briefings to date include perspectives from prevention specialists, treatment providers, patient advocates, and policy specialists; views on the science of SUAA research; viewpoints of individuals from the judicial system, academia and industry on alternative models for organizing SUAA research; views from former NIAAA and NIDA directors; and insight from NIAAA and NIDA Advisory Councils. He noted that the Working Group had also briefed Collins, SMRB chair Norman Augustine, and Chair of the SMRB Working Group on the NIH Intramural Research Program on SUAA Arthur Rubenstein.

Roper reported that the advocates for reorganization believe that:  Science would benefit from synergy of commonalities, high prevalence of drug users also use alcohol, suggesting both scientific and policy justification, segregation of disciplines creates public health gaps, and reorganization, particularly merging, would create synergy for advancing the science of SUAA and increase flexibility in cross-training. Conversely, advocates against reorganization believe that it would recreate research gaps in understanding the ubiquitous effects of alcohol and the unique factors underlying abuse and addiction; contextual and socio-cultural differences warrant separate, focused research efforts; lack of compelling evidence to suggest that reorganization would improve treatment, prevention, research, and/or training; the current organization mirrors the separation of professional and scientific associations; and reorganization, particularly merging, would decrease emphasis on effects of alcohol on multiple organ targets, jeopardize priority/budget of alcohol-related research, and create organizational/administrative obstacles and reversals.

He noted that the sessions raised additional questions:  Are other areas of research being examined for potential inclusion in a merged Institute? Has the SMRB considered broadening the mission/scope of a merged Institute?  Has the SMRB investigated intra-governmental relationships (e.g., the Office of National Drug Control Policy oversight of NIDA's budget)?  Has industry participated in the discussion and/or voiced an opinion?  Since patients have no difficulty combining substances, why does the government? Will the SMRB recommend a single solution or multiple solutions?

Questions for the SMRB to Consider

The Working Group also came up with a list of issues the Board should consider:  the underfunded nature of both Institutes despite the burden of illness; potential funding loss due to stigma associated with combining these areas of research; the public health message for alcohol is different: moderate alcohol usage may be healthy, immoderate usage is not; focusing on reward pathways creates a dogma about abuse and addiction; constrains science to only one potential mechanism; the Diabetes Institute or the Aging Institute are more logical partners for NIAAA than NIDA; and if a merger is recommended, there needs to be a "genuine" combining of the Institutes and not the creation of two departments within one institute.   He informed the Board that the advisory councils of both Institutes had passed resolutions on their respective positions on a possible merger of the Institutes:  NIAAA against and NIDA for merging.

Referring to the deliberations of the DOCE Working Group, Roper noted that in assessing the need for change, SUAA asked:  Is substance use, abuse, and addiction research at NIH capitalizing on scientific opportunities and/or meeting public health needs?  Could reorganization better optimize SUAA research at NIH?  This led to more questions:   Are there significant organizational impediments preventing effective responses to external forces?  Is there a health problem or an important area of scientific inquiry not addressed because of the limitations imposed by the current organization?  Have there been scientific discoveries that create new opportunities for innovation and advance that would benefit from reorganizing components of the NIH?  Are there evolving public health needs on the horizon that will create new challenges and opportunities that would be best faced by reorganizing components within NIH?  Is there a problem (or could things be more effective) in the supply and demand of human and/or physical resources (e.g., training, dissemination of research/public health messages)?

The Working Group also requested and received additional data from NIDA and NIAAA on the:  major challenges facing the advancement of SUAA research, funding history and Institute success rates, Institute support for early career investigators, extent of SUAA research in the entire NIH research portfolio, and SUAA demographics.  Based on the perspectives heard and the data collected, the SUAA Working group is in agreement that the status quo is not ideal for fulfilling NIH's mission and optimizing research into substance use, abuse and addiction.  Roper indicated that the Working Group is eager to improve how NIH manages research in this area.

Spectrums of Options

In evaluating the options for change, SUAA deliberated on which option is best for addressing the need for change.  These included: the status quo; the creation of a single council, clustered functions, new initiative, blueprint across Institutes, clustered functions across Institutes, merged institute, and/or a new institute.  Roper reported that to date, the Working Group disagrees as to the best way to proceed.  A minority of the Working Group believes a structural reorganization is needed, involving a merger of NIDA and NIAAA into a single institute focused on alcohol and drug abuse and addiction.  They believe the change in scientific landscape, research opportunities, public health needs, and the potential for more efficient research provide the rationale for considering structural change.  They also believe that a substantial vision of a new way of approaching the science and addressing public health needs ought to compel us to take the difficult step towards merging the two institutes.

According to Roper, the majority of Working Group believe the best way to proceed is a functional reorganization of all research programs with a relevant scientific focus.  The majority believes the change in scientific landscape, research opportunities, public health needs, and the potential for more efficient research provide the rationale for considering change.  They are not yet, however, convinced structural changes would benefit the science in a way that functional integration could not.  They also see substantial room to improve the science through functional integration across the entire NIH.  The majority also believes that there is evidence that functional strategies have worked in the past, in other scientific areas, with varying degrees of success.

Having agreed as a whole that there is a need for organizational change, the SUAA Working Group plans to continue to analyze potential structural and functional options, including the historic success of different models.  They will present the Working Group's recommendation at the May 17-18, 2010 meeting.

Collins acknowledged the tremendous debate regarding merging NIDA and NIAAA.  He asked the Working Group to think through what the models would look like with a merger of the institutes versus a functional approach, recognizing the status quo is not adequate in its integration of addiction research.  He further asked them to enumerate to the best of their ability the pros and cons of both.  He acknowledged that a functional approach would resemble trans-NIH initiatives such as the Neuroscience Blueprint that not only taps into the addiction research supported by NIDA and NIAAA but also occurs in other parts of NIH.  "You would not want to miss the chance if you are going down that road," said Collins, to "pull in other areas that have not been very well connected either or not as well as they could be, tobacco, particularly."  He added that you could also "talk about food addiction, sexual addiction, gambling addiction and so on and that means bringing in some of the social and behavioral sciences research that maybe has not been as tightly connected as well."  Collins suggested that the Working Group look at the Neuroscience Blueprint, an experiment in science management addressing the number of neurological-focused institutes and their ability to work together. He noted that former director Harold Varmus suggested that we "cram all of those institutes under one roof." The agency has not done that.  Collins suggested the need to examine whether the Blueprint is accomplishing its goal. 

Working Group on NIH Intramural Research

Rubenstein, chair of the NIH Intramural Research Working Group, noted the broad challenge the group had been given:  to recommend whether organizational change could further optimize the NIH's intramural research program and thereby maximize human health and patient well being; and given the urgency of addressing the fiscal vitality of the NIH Clinical Center (CC), recommend steps to enhance its fiscal sustainability and utilization.  The Working Group considered the fiscal sustainability "a more urgent issue" and with the agreement of full SMRB started with that issue, he reported. 

Rubenstein noted that historically, the NIH CC has provided a versatile clinical research environment allowing the NIH mission to improve health.  There are, however, unresolved problems in governance and budget that are impediments to enabling this mission, he noted.   This Working Group, like the others, has also consulted broadly including with the CC's advisory board, hospital administrators, NIH investigators and advisors, and the directors of the NIH institutes and centers, he reported.

The Working Group's findings included three "well-defined" overlapping issues:  1) Vision and role; 2) Governance and 3) Budget.  According Rubenstein, when it comes to the vision and role of the CC there is a perceived lack of prioritization of and commitment to funding clinical research at the CC; barriers to partnerships and leveraging resources (e.g., barriers to intra-/extramural collaborations, intellectual property); and barriers to recruitment, mentorship, and retention of investigators.  There is modest use of the input from extramural investigators, he noted.   The challenge in terms of governance is the lack of a trans-NIH vision for priority setting in clinical research and complexity in overall the administrative setup.  A key driver is the issue of how the CC will be optimally funded.  The cost of taking care of patients is increasing and is not keeping up with inflation. The funding of the CC is unstable.  Cost shifts have had undesirable impacts on other parts of intramural research.  The budget mechanism does not support outside investigators' use of the CC.  

Rubenstein noted that the Working Group would not say that the CC is being run inefficiently.  The Working Group looked at whether the CC is more expensive than other kinds of hospitals and found that it is within range of costs, on per patient day basis, with comparable hospitals. He pointed out that the CC is a research focused hospital and has significant fewer beds which preclude the same economies of scale that can be achieved by the others.  Additionally, all CC patients are on a research protocol which often drives up the costs.

Meeting these challenges the Working Group submits that the role of the CC should be to serve as a state of the art national facility, with resources optimally managed to enable both internal and external investigators.  This is especially important as translation and clinical research become a greater imperative, Rubenstein pointed out.  The Working group suggests that external use of the CC could be enhanced and expanded.  Growth in four programmatic areas would be key to realizing the vision of the NIH CC as a national resource:  1) collaborative research, 2) access to NIH clinical services, 3) clinical research training, and 4) bench to bedside programs.  There could be a tremendous upside to opening up the CC, he emphasized.  

Steve Katz, National Institute on Arthritis and Muscoloskeletal and Skin Diseases Institute, and Anthony Fauci, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, jointly presented the Working Group's deliberations on governance and budget. The goal is that governance should have a simplified structure, capable of developing and overseeing a clear, coherence plan, Katz explained. The Group came up with three options with regard to CC governance: 1) retain the Advisory Board for Clinical Research (ABCR) and establish to a CC Governance Board populated with NIH institute and center directors and others, knowledge of the CC's budget; 2) the NIH Governance Board and the NIH director would receive input directly from the ABCR, something that has not been done in the past; and 3) the NIH director would receive input from the ABCR and an internal group.  Any one of the proposed options is a "vast improvement" over the current governing process, Katz suggested.

Regarding the budget, the Working Group believes the budget "should be linked to a strong planning process, remain stable (in source) and equitable (in distribution), be effective in attracting and supporting a high quality workforce and assure efficient use," Katz stated. The Working Group came up with five potential funding options: 1) a "school tax," the status quo where the funding for the CC is supported by the institutes' and centers' intramural research budgets via a reallocation of funds appropriated for their respective intramural research programs (Katz reported this does not work); 2) a modified "school tax" which would allow for a reallocation of funds appropriated to the institutes and centers intramural research programs either to fixed costs which are 80 percent of the costs of the CC or to variable costs which would be associated with an institute's use of the CC. (The decision-making remains at the NIH.); 3) a line-item for the CC in the mechanism table for the NIH decided by the Congress via the appropriations process; 4) a line-item for the CC in mechanism table of the NIH Office of the Director also decided via the appropriations process; and 5) a direct appropriation by the Congress for the CC comparable to those received by the individual NIH institutes and centers. Katz emphasized that the "school tax" models continue the current budget practices where the CC costs compete with other intramural research program resources. The Working Group provided the Board with information on the impact of each model and the accompanying budget implications. According to Katz, the majority of the IRP Working group prefers a line item in the appropriations process.

Rubenstein reported that the next steps for the Working group include:  Continuing its analysis of each of the options in terms of how they compare to the optimal option; Further explore potential users of the CC by external community; Continue development and refinement of optimal governance models; Continue ongoing internal in-depth analysis of each funding option; and Re-examine the IOM recommendations regarding CC research across the NIH.

NIH Establishes Director's Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce to Fill Knowledge Gaps

National Science Foundation (NSF) data provides evidence that lack of diversity remains an important problem for the biomedical research workforce.  At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence that the research enterprise will directly benefit from broader inclusion.  Further, research indicates that diversity enhances the quality of education in multiple settings.  To address the concerns regarding the lack of diversity, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has created the NIH Director ARRA Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce.  The Award is designed to foster new ways of thinking about research related to scientific workforce diversity. 

The Award is expected to fill fundamental knowledge gaps and to encourage the development of new approaches to this complex problem.  The Award will be given to "extremely creative individual scientists who propose innovative - and possibly transforming - approaches to this major challenge to biomedical research."  Proposed approaches should have the potential to produce an unusually high impact in an area of research on workforce diversity.  The proposed research should also reflect ideas substantially different from those already being pursued elsewhere.  New interventions that have the capacity to improve workforce diversity in new ways incorporating strong research designs to assess unambiguously the effects of those interventions are being solicited in proposals.

The NIH defines biomedical research broadly in the announcement "as encompassing scientific investigations in the biological, behavioral, clinical, social, physical, chemical, computational, engineering, and mathematical sciences that have the potential to improve public health."  For the Director's Pathfinder program, diversity can address the participation of individuals currently underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences on a national basis including: individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; individuals with disabilities; individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in health-related research; and women at the faculty level. The research conducted with support by Director's Pathfinder Award can address diversity on a national or institutional basis.

The program is supported by funds provided to the NIH under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Budget proposals are limited to $2 million in total costs over a three year project period.   Letters of intent are due on April 5, 2010.  Applications are due on May 4, 2010.  For more information see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-10-013.html.

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan has made two appearances within the past two weeks in front of the House Education and Labor Committee.  The first one to defend President Obama's FY 2011 Budget request on March 3, and on March 17, to discuss the Administration's blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  At both hearings Duncan continued to push his message for education reform.