NSF Director Suresh Speaks at PCAST Meeting

NSF Explains Sustainability Initiative

The National Science Foundation (NSF) in a Dear Colleague letter from its leadership to the scientific community lays out its Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) initiative unveiled in the FY 2011 budget proposal.  All eleven NSF Directorates and Offices have joined together to support the "investment area."

According to NSF, "Achieving a sustainable human future in the face of both gradual and abrupt environmental change is one of the most significant challenges facing humanity. NSF will contribute to addressing this challenge by supporting the science and engineering research needed to understand and overcome the barriers to sustainable human well-being."

Explaining further: "Through SEES, NSF seeks to enable the discoveries needed to inform actions that lead to environmental, energy and societal sustainability. SEES will include the conceptual, theoretical, empirical, and computational research needed to further develop the basic science, engineering, education, and policy knowledge base relevant to sustainability. Additionally, it will support projects at multiple scales, from the individual to the system level, and will stimulate innovations in education and learning research and practice."

NSF expects SEES "to be a multi-year effort that will address challenges in climate and energy research and education using a systems-based approach to understanding, predicting, and reacting to change in the linked natural, social, and built environment." The initial efforts in 2010 focused on a suite of research and education programs at the intersection of climate and environment, with specific attention to incorporating human dimensions.  The Foundation released solicitations that addressed ocean acidification, water sustainability and climate, dimensions of biodiversity, earth systems modeling, and climate change education (see Update, April 5, 2010, NSF Expands Activity on Climate, Energy, and Sustainability).  NSF plans to continue these competitions under the SEES portfolio. Future efforts, NSF notes, will support research and education that builds connections between current projects, creates new nodes of activity, engages the public, and develops the personnel needed to understand the complexity of sustainability issues.

In FY 2011, NSF plans to encourage interdisciplinary research and education on energy sustainability, with a particular emphasis on the socioeconomic and environmental implications. Potential areas of emphases include the development of sustainable energy technologies, development of techniques for effective and efficient use of water resources, and research in transportation technology. NSF will also continue to focus on creating the necessary workforce to address sustainability challenges and connecting elements of the SEES portfolio. Specific efforts will support postdoctoral researchers and early career scientists at the interfaces between social sciences and other science and engineering disciplines.

The SEES Portfolio will support research and education projects that span all eleven NSF Directorates and Offices, including:

President Names Former BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham to CEA

Katharine Abraham

 

On January 7, while touring the Thompson Creek Manufacturing Plant in Landover, MD President Obama announced that he is nominating former Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner Katharine Abraham to the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA).  The Senate must confirm her appointment.

 

 In announcing Abraham's nomination, the President declared:  "I am confident that she is going to provide the kind of unbiased, unvarnished advice that will help us craft the best policies to strengthen this economy in the years to come."

 

Abraham is currently a Professor in the Joint Program in Survey Methodology at the University of Maryland as well as a Faculty Associate at the Maryland Population Research Center.  She served as the head of BLS from 1993-2001 during the Clinton Administration.  Prior to that appointment, she was a Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, a Research Associate at the Brookings Institution, and on the faculty at MIT's Sloan School of Management. 

 

From 2002-2004, she chaired a National Academy of Sciences panel on accounting for non-market activity. Its report, Beyond the Market was published in 2005.  In recent years, Abraham's research has focused on analyzing data from the American Time Use Survey, which provides nationally representative estimates of how, where, and with whom Americans spend their time, and is the only federal survey providing data on the full range of non-market activities, from childcare to volunteering.

 

She is currently the Chair of the American Economic Association's (AEA) Committee on Government Relations after previously leading the AEA's Committee on Economic Statistics.  In 2010, she received the Roger Herriot Award for Innovation in Federal Statistics. Eight years earlier she won the Julius Shiskin Memorial Award for Economic Statistics.

 

Abraham has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in Economics, with a minor in Statistics from Iowa State University.  She received a NSF Graduate Fellowship.

The CEA, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, is charged with offering the President objective economic advice on the formulation of both domestic and international economic policy. The Council bases its recommendations and analysis on economic research and empirical evidence, using the best data available to support the President in setting our nation's economic policy.  Established in 1946, its current Chairman is Austin Goolsbee, on leave from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, and its other member is Celia Rouse, on leave from Princeton University. 

Measuring American Well-Being:  SSRC's Human Development Project Issues Report

The search for better ways of measuring the vitality and well-being of American life beyond the simple indicator of economic success known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has led to a number of activities.  One was the commission created by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, headed by Nobel Prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, which produced alternative ways of thinking about economic and social well-being.  Another is the State of the USA effort to create national indicators led by Chris Hoenig and whose Executive Governors include current COSSA President Ken Prewitt and former COSSA President Janet Norwood.  Responding to this effort, Congress enacted legislation to create a Key National Indicators Commission, which includes Princeton Sociologist Marta Tienda and University of Chicago Public Policy Professor Thomas Phillipson.

The Social Science Research Council (SSRC), led by Craig Calhoun, has also joined in this activity with its American Human Development Project.  Under the authorship of Kristen Lewis and Sarah Burd-Sharps it has released The Measure of America 2010-2011:  Mapping Risks and Resilience.  The significant contribution of this document is that it provides its data by Congressional District.  The report provides data in three areas: health, education, and income.

In the health arena, the most important finding is that:  "The unprecedented attention to the nation's health care structure over the past two years overlooked the country's most alarming health problem: huge disparities in health outcomes for different population groups."   Two data points illustrate this:  "Whites in Washington, DC live, on average, twelve years longer than African Americans in the same city," and "Life expectancy in Virginia's Eighth Congressional District, in suburban Washington, DC, is a decade longer than life expectancy in West Virginia's Third Congressional District, in the rural southern part of the state."

For education, the data indicate that:  "In a knowledge economy, education provides a bulwark against economic downturn and disruptions, is a key factor in expanding opportunity, and remains a long-term source of resilience in the face of adversity."  Where you live also affects educational attainment.  In the Thirtieth Congressional District of CA (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Malibu) nearly three in five adult residents are college graduates and more than 25 percent have advanced degrees.  A few blocks away in Downtown Los Angeles' 34^th Congressional District, only three percent of residents have advanced degrees.  

With regard to income median income has risen from $23,000 in the mid-1970s to nearly $30,000 today.  However, the report notes, as others have done, that "the rise has been anything but even across diverse populations."  Female earnings doubled in constant dollars, while male earnings rose by only $2,500.  According to the report, the wealthiest congressional district in the US is NY-14 on Manhattan's East Side, with median earnings of $60,000, while the poorest is NY-16 "a few subway stops away in the Bronx," with median earnings of $18,000.

In summarizing how to advance human development, the report notes that while the remedies for the problems "may be complex and perhaps incompletely understood, they are not abject mysteries."  To improve health outcomes, the report pronounces: "We must address the 'Fatal Four' - the risk factors that are the most significant contributions to premature death, namely, smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and drinking to excess."

In education, the report declares, "Providing universal access to quality preschool should be a national goal."  It also calls for addressing the high school dropout crisis, investing in the education of immigrant children, ensuring that all children have good teachers, and deflating ballooning college tuition costs.

Protecting young children from the risks of extreme poverty is a major priority to provide opportunity for increased income, according to the report.  Research has demonstrated that extreme poverty imperils the cognitive, social, physical and emotional development of young children causing harm that reverberates across the life course of individuals and triggers high costs to society in the long run (see UPDATE, July 26, 2010, Impact of Recession on American Families Discussed at Congressional Briefing).  The report also calls for incentives like creating automatic savings accounts for children at birth so that low-income people can build assets.

For the full report go to: http://www.measureofamerica.org/

NSTC Sponsors Workshop on the Science of Science Measurement

The increasing national and international focus on the value of science and technology (S&T) for advancing innovation has increased pressure on Federal S&T agencies to make, and account for, wise investments. Recognizing that "wise management depends on priority setting, resource management and evaluation on the part of agency science programs," the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)  seeks to respond to the "clear urgency to link what has been learned from frontier research with the practical applications of the measurement of S&T outcomes in a way that can be immediately used."

Accordingly, on December 2-3, 2010, the NSTC sponsored the Workshop on the Science of Science Measurement designed to connect science agencies with "the frontier of current research on science measurement."  The goal of the workshop was to inform science policy practitioners about "very practical issues" including how to:  1)  Manage scientific portfolios in a more scientific manner; 2) Develop performance and outcome metrics; 3) Measure the return on investment; and 4) Use science to identify emerging trends in the U.S. scientific enterprise.  The four workshop topic areas were:  economic benefits, science and technology workforce development, technology development and deployment, and social, health and environmental benefits.

The Workshop was designed to build on the 2009 Science of Science Policy Roadmap (http://scienceofsciencepolicy.net/blogs/sosp/pages/sosproadmap.aspx).   The science of science policy (SoSP) is an emerging field of interdisciplinary research, "the goal of which is to provide a scientifically rigorous, quantitative basis from which policy makers and researchers can assess the impacts of the Nation's scientific and engineering enterprise, improve their understanding of its dynamics, and assess the likely outcomes."

White House Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra welcomed participants and emphasized that he is "appreciative of the work" the workshop participants are doing.  Chopra made three observations.  His first was that in September 2009 President Obama unveiled a strategy for American innovation that looks forward over the next decade and beyond which thinks about how the investment we have in policies today can produce the jobs and economic outputs of the future.  That strategy, said Chopra, reflects in large part the priorities that this President has placed on not just getting the economy out of the current recession but ensuring that the decisions made impact the future.  He admitted that it was a "difficult balance." 

Chopra explained that he been at this issue of innovation since his days as Virginia's Secretary of Technology under then-Governor Tim Kaine where he "grappled" with the issue that everybody understood the power of our scientific investments.   The "difficult and complicated issue" they dealt with, he observed, was "always how to measure the value."  While he made it a priority, he couldn't figure out how to do it.  He acknowledged his excitement upon hearing that formerU.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Miguel Gutierrez was establishing a program on innovation measurement.

It is an issue that continues to need "thoughtful and creative approaches to get that measurement and that evidence base correct.  More broadly, not just innovation but to measure the work you are doing," investing in our scientific assets, said Chopra.  That is his "very firm belief, then and now," he stressed, and is "hopefully reflected" in the Administration's policy and memoranda.  He shared he had an opportunity to meet with Julia Lane (National Science Foundation) and co-chair of the Science of Science Policy Workgroup, within days of his Senate confirmation and immediately "grabbed on the work that she was doing in the Science of Science Policy" initiative.   Chopra noted that he believes that it is "absolutely critical to not only accurately reflecting what is happening in the world,... but for it to also  serve as the foundation/base so that we can be more effective in turning the assets in our economy for the benefit of our broader population," he added.  The ability for folks who produce the kind of output measures called for at the Workshop, from any methodologies discussed, if in the hands of the right people, could actually have a catalytic effect, he argued.

Chopra's second observation was that workshop participants' activities were also a very important factor in the Administration's commitment to open government. The President has encouraged the agencies to think about how they would "embody" his philosophy of a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative government.  "The publication of scientific data and the ability to map that to other outputs is very, very important," he continued.

His final observation was more of a question: He asked participants to consider to what extent do you assess what you do, the decisions that you make, related to sustaining economic prospects of the American economy?  

'Science ...Protection against Our Preconceptions, Our Self-Certainty, and Our Self-Deception'

Rep. Rush Holt (R-NJ), a physicist by training, made remarks on day two of the workshop after listening to a presentation by Julia Lane and Stefano Bertuzzi (National Institutes of Health) on The STAR METRICS Project:  Current and Future Uses for S & E Workforce Data.   The goal of the program, according to Lane is to create a data infrastructure that will permit the analysis of the impact of science investments using administrative records as well as other electronic sources of data.  The interagency Consortium is led by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Phase I of the STAR Metrics framework identifies how many scientists, including graduate students, undergraduate students and research staff, are supported by federal science funding.  Phase II of the program is intended to describe their scientific activities, their mobility, and their employment and earning trajectories. 

Holt began by emphasizing that he is a "strong supporter" of science and is "vitally interested in the workshop proceedings."  Noting that he was "delighted to see the conference taking place, he added that he would confirm participants' "suspicions that Congressional decisions are not made scientifically."  Holt told workshop participants that what they "are doing will prove to be very important to [Congress]."  Accordingly, he was there to "praise," and "encourage" and ask "them to continue to move at warp speed." 

"Some of us," said Holt, "are very sure that science helps the society and the economy."  By science, he explained that he always looks back to Louis Thomas' definition, "wonderfully simple, but rich... Science is the shrewdest maneuver for understanding how the world works."  It has been "unquestionably successful" in doing so and "providing reliable knowledge.  But what use has it been in quality of life and economics and so forth, he asked? 

Holt argued that we have mined the investments that have been made decades ago without replanting the seed corn, thus allowing some of those investments to wither. The current state of our scientific enterprise as defined by the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, as do other reports, provide "sketchy metrics," Holt suggested. There are "certainly troubling signs and other countries are investing in many of the changes suggested here five years ago, while we continue to hedge and debate," the Congressman observed.  We are "clearly losing our leadership edge in global innovation, maybe economically," he continued, explaining that we "don't really have the metrics that are needed there, so it is so important what you are doing here."

Holt pointed out he and others argued for the $22 billion of new investments made in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  He argued to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) about the short-term and long-term benefits of ARRA.   It is not clear that kind of investment will continue, he noted.  Sustainable economic growth will require sustained investment, Holt stressed.  He acknowledged that "we are facing budget pressures brought about for political reasons" Some plans suggest cutting 10 to 30 percent in scientific agency budgets. "Anyone should know that cutting federal funds [for science] will not balance our budgets, still, so the saying goes, everyone has to share in the burden." 

But is research like street sweeping, equipping an army or other governmental activities?  Is science a different animal, he asked?  "Many of us suspect that it is, but we actually don't know if we are honest with ourselves," Holt answered.  And that is why you are here he told workshop participants, stressing "It is really important that people from so many disciplines are here."   You are taking seriously this responsibility to provide the hard facts," he added.  Holt emphasized the need for participants to "understand that in decision-making anecdotes trump data, whether personal or Congressional."  It is just the way humans make decisions, he contended. It happens in Committee meetings all the time.  Whether it is good or bad, it is a fact, Holt stated.  But anecdotes, he admitted, have to have some basis in fact and have to be intellectually honest. 

You are building the infrastructure needed to answer science questions.  He emphasized that he is sure that the $22 billion in ARRA funding is being spent in the national interest and is a good investment.   That is his preconception, argued.  "Science is supposed to be protection against our preconceptions, our self-certainty, and our self-deception.   It is interesting, he noted, that science has not been studied scientifically and the effect of science -- economically, socially, and on the quality of our lives -has not been subjected to rigorous metrics.

Holt asserted our technological leadership, our manufacturing base, and whole industries that have not yet been conceived, the whole foundation of our economy depend on it.  He thinks that investment in science is different than any other kind of investment. The great political problem we face today, he contended, is that more than ever before, everyone is operating with his or her own facts. 

Holt quoted Judge Learned Hand who said:  "The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too certain that it is right."  You have to approach things with an open mind, looking for evidence without certitude, he explained.  So right now when we are anguishing over the future, we should be asking what kind of investment will lead to an improved quality of life, improved economic standing for our country, we should be approaching it as scientists, he posited.  We should have the evidence and the willingness to accept the evidence to make the investments wisely.  Holt concluded his remarks telling workshop participants:  "What you are doing here is central to where our county is going.  It is surprising that it has not been recognized or been done before."

"Top researchers" were invited to provide nontechnical summaries of relevant research and expert rapporteurs provided operational syntheses.  Researchers  included:  Julian Alston (University of California Davis), Bruce Weinberg (Ohio State University), Subhra Saha (Cleveland State University), Richard Freeman (Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research ), Andrew Wang  (Harvard Law School and NBER), Jeffrey Fruman (Boston University and NBER) Fiona Murray (MIT Sloan School), Scott Stern (Northwestern University and NBER), Jeff Smith (University of Michigan ), Heidi Williams (NBER), Diana Hicks and Susan Cozzens (Georgia Institute of Technology), Kenneth Flamm (University of Texas at Austin), Tiffany Sargent (National Science Foundation and Intel Corporation), Robert Sargent (Syracuse University), Richard Ellis (Ellis Research Services)), Sharon Levin (University of Missouri-StLouis), Paula Stephan (Georgia State University), Connie L. McNeely and Laurie Schinterler (George Mason University), Michele Snoeck (Universidad de la Republica, Uruguay), Erik Fisher (Arizona State University), Cindy Yuan (University of Chicago), Robin Wagner (National Institutes of Health ), and Katy Borner (Indiana University).   Rapporteurs included:  Nick Maynard (White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy), Valentin Livada (MIT Sloan School of Management), Paula Stephan (Georgia State University), and Lana Skirboll (The Zerhouni Group).

To view the webcast and/or to download copies of the papers presented see:  http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/sosp/. 

IOM Report Examines the Role of Measurement of Health Outcomes

New NHGRI ELSI Funding Opportunities

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Research Program, has issued three new funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) aimed at investigators interested in conducting research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning research results to participants in genomics research.

The first FOA, Development of a Preliminary Evidence Base to Inform Decision-making about Returning Research Results to Participants in Genomic Studies (RFA-HG-11-003) is designed to stimulate empirical research to develop a preliminary evidence base to inform decision-making about whether, when, and how to offer to return individual research results to participants in genomic research studies (especially whole exome or whole genome sequencing studies) or to individuals who have provided samples or data for genomic repositories (such as biobanks or databases such as dbGaP).  This announcement is aimed primarily at investigators who propose behavioral or social science research projects in which there is likely to be direct interaction with research participants or other stakeholders involved in current, ongoing genomics projects (especially whole exome or whole genome sequencing projects) or in genomic sample or data repositories.  

NHGRI points out that genomic studies will produce "voluminous" amounts of information that will be comprehensive in scope.  Inevitably, this research "will uncover a large number of incidental findings - findings that are apparently unrelated to the original research questions."  Deciding what to do with these findings will present significant ethical challenges to researchers.  These studies may also uncover new information -- not only about risk factors for the disease or trait that was the stated subject of the original study, but about the risks for other diseases and traits as well. These factors and others, in addition to limited resources typically available to researchers, can potentially make the prospect of offering to return all or even most individual results to the participants in genomic studies unwieldy, "and in some cases frankly unrealistic."  Accordingly, deciding the appropriate course of action with respect to findings in these categories raises difficult ethical issues. 

Given the lack of consensus in this area regarding the appropriate course of action, NHGRI stresses that there is "a pressing need...to develop rational and workable criteria to help guide decision-making by researchers, managers of sample and data repositories, and IRBS [institutional review boards] about what type of information can, should, or should not be offered to participants in genomics studies. Such criteria must be informed by solid empirical (behavioral and social science) evidence and by normative and legal considerations."

NHGRI reports that so far most studies that have examined the attitudes of the public and of potential research participants regarding the return of results suggest that people have an overwhelming preference for learning such information when the topic is introduced in the abstract.  Conversely, responses become more equivocal when people are asked to consider the uncertainties and nuances associated with incidental findings, findings of unknown or uncertain significance, or findings the significance of which may change over time.  

The announcement is directed particularly at studies that will investigate how participants in ongoing or planned genomics research projects understand, react to, and use individual research results when they are offered and returned.  Studies that examine the actual psychosocial and behavioral impact of receiving or not receiving such results are especially invited.

Given the complexities of the information that participants may receive,NHGRI is also interested in issues of informed consent.  What does it mean to inform people adequately about potential benefits and risks associated with the possible return of individual research results?  What are the measures and their thresholds?  Are there thresholds for numeracy, literacy, and health literacy, and if so, what are they? Is it necessary to educate participants about genomics during the informed consent process?

The announcement further invites research investigating the experiences of researchers, managers of biobanks and data repositories, and IRBs who have already begun to tackle issues related to the returns of results.

The primary goal of the announcement, however, is to stimulate highly innovative empirical research in which there is likely to be direct interaction with participants or other stakeholders in ongoing or planned genomics projects which are actually confronting (or plan to soon confront) these issues.  Accordingly, priority will be given to research teams that involve active collaborations between researchers in the behavioral or social sciences and genomics researchers who are already conducting or have plans to conduct studies that are likely to generate actual individual research results and incidental findings that re potentially clinical actionable.

For more information and/or to apply see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HG-11-003.html.

The second announcement, Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Returning Research Results to Genomic Research Participants (RFA-HG-11-004), is designed is to stimulate analytical research on the normative and legal issues involved in deciding whether, when, and how to offer to return individual research results to participants in genomic research studies (especially whole exome or whole genome sequencing studies) or to individuals who have provided samples or data for genomic repositories (such as biobanks or databases such as dbGaP).  This FOA is aimed primarily at sole investigators or small teams of investigators who propose modest legal and normative research projects.  

Specific areas of research include, but are not limited to:

• Under what circumstances might an ethical or legal duty exist to offer to return individual (as distinct from aggregate) research results and incidental findings (i.e., is there an ethical or legal "duty to warn" or "duty to rescue" in the context of genomic research)? 
• If an ethical or legal duty exists in some cases, what are its parameters and to whom does it extend (e.g., primary investigators in clinical studies, primary investigators in epidemiological studies, secondary investigators, institutions that manage biobanks or databases)?
• What is the relevance of the nature and size of the study, the characteristics of the study population (including whether the participants have alternate ways of accessing the information), and the nature and extent of the previous relationship with individual participants? 
• If a duty exists, does it require that an investigator "mine" the research data for relevant information, or is the duty limited to information the investigator "stumbles upon"? 
• Are there any temporal limits on the duty to offer to return results?
• What ethical and legal considerations apply in cases where the results in question relate to a disorder for which no preventive or therapeutic intervention exists, where the meaning of the results is indeterminate or may change over time, where the research participant was told that he or she would not be re-contacted, or where the research participant was unaware that his or her sample or data were being studied (i.e., by a secondary investigator)?
• What ethical or legal duties with respect to the return of results are owed to family members of research participants, including next-of-kin of deceased participants?
• What are the ethical and legal considerations with respect to the return of results where the research participant was a child at the time of the study and is now an adult?
• What circumstances might give rise to an ethical or legal duty to withhold individual research results or incidental findings?
• If a research participant has indicated that he or she does not want to receive any individual research results, is there ever a justification for overriding the participant's expressed wishes?
• What theories of liability might apply to a failure to offer or a failure to withhold individual research results and incidental findings?
• In making decisions about the return of individual research results and incidental findings, what are the implications of:
• current guidance regarding the definition of "human subjects research" under the Common Rule
• existing approaches to informed consent
• existing governance mechanisms for genomic biobanks and databases
• existing practices regarding de-identification of genomic samples and data
• existing medical records practices and related privacy protections, including HIPAA
• the requirement that individual research results be validated in a CLIA-certified laboratory
• possible intellectual property constraints on the sharing of research data?
• What is the extent of the risk, if any, that policies favoring the return of results could lead to a conflation between research and clinical care (i.e., therapeutic or diagnostic misconception)?  What approaches could help to minimize this risk?
• To what extent should practical, logistical, or budgetary constraints enter into the calculus about which (if any) results to offer participants?  When returning individual results would require the diversion of substantial resources from the research enterprise itself, how if at all should this factor into an assessment of the researcher's ethical or legal duties?
• What is likely to be the long-term economic impact on the health care system of offering to return individual research results? 
• What novel legal and regulatory challenges will be raised by efforts to incorporate individual research results into participants' medical records?  

For more information and/or to apply see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HG-11-004.html.

The third FOA, Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (RFA-HG-10-017) invites applications for projects designed to generate, process, filter, and interpret data from whole exome or whole genome sequencing in the specific context of an active clinical setting, and to return--and investigate the psychosocial and behavioral implications of returning--genomic results in the clinical setting (as distinct from the traditional research setting.) 

Approaches to clinical translation are likely to evolve during the next decade in response to changes in healthcare, developments in sequencing and informatics, a greater understanding of disease biology, and a more mature understanding of ethical, legal, and social issues.  This program, through its collaborative and cooperative nature, is designed to facilitate the development and standardization of best practices and common approaches to clinical translation.

NHGRI plans to organize a consortium of investigators that includes the principal ELSI investigators and relevant key personnel funded under all three FOAs; this consortium will address common issues, explore opportunities for synergy among studies, and identify areas of possible consensus that can form the basis for policy recommendations in this area.  

For more information see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HG-10-017.html.

Informational Teleconference Planned

An informational teleconference for prospective applicants to these RFAs will be held on January 28, 2011, 12:00 - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  More information about this teleconference meeting is available at:  http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-HG-11-007.html.

For additional information about these FOAs or the informational meeting, or for general information about funding opportunities available through the NHGRI ELSI Research Program, contact: Jean E. McEwen, Program Director, Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program. NHGRI, NIH, (301) 496-7531 (phone), (301) 402-1950 (FAX), or jean.mcewen@nih.hhs.gov, http://www.genome.gov/10001618.

Research on Alcohol-Related Public Policies

The adverse consequences of alcohol consumption on health, social, and economic outcomes are "large in magnitude and diverse in character."   These effects encompass a wide variety of health conditions, both chronic and acute, as well as effects on developments and maturation, educational achievement, employment, productivity, violent and criminal behavior, health care utilization, cultural mores, and family and interpersonal relations.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) are seeking grant applications to conduct research on the effects of alcohol-related public policies on health, economic, and social behaviors and outcomes.   The purpose of the funding opportunity announcement (FOA), Research on Alcohol-Related Public Policies such as Those Detailed in the Alcohol Policy Information System (PA-11-087), is to advance the understanding of public policy pertaining to alcohol as a tool for improving public health and welfare.

The specific objectives of the announcement are to provide support for (a) studies of the effects of alcohol-related public policies on specific health, economic, or social behaviors and outcomes; (b) evaluations of policy measures as means of improving health outcomes; (c) analyses to elucidate the behavioral linkages through which alcohol-related policies affect intervening attitudes or behaviors that ultimately affect health-related behavior or outcomes; and (d) research to advance methods and measurement used in studying relationships between alcohol-related public policies and health -related behaviors and outcomes.

For more information see:  http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-087.html.

COSSA