1. Technologies to Accelerate Discovry 
2. Enhancing the evidence base for health care decisions - The agency intends to support rigorous programs for assessing and ensuring the effectiveness of treatments within populations and for individuals.   Personalized medicine is emphasized as "essential to fulfilling the agency's mission and will enhance the evidence base for decision-making in clinical practice."  The budget request notes that Comparative Effectiveness Research methodologies will be important to advancing personalized medicine.  The agency plans to fund a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Research Network Collaboratory designed to accelerate science across three high-priority areas:  1) large epidemiology studies, 2) clinical trials, and 3) electronic-health-record (EHR)-enabled health care delivery.
3. New investigators, New ideas - The agency will emphasize two programs:  1) the NIH Director's New Innovator Award ($80 million is requested in FY 2012), which supports exceptionally creative new investigators with potentially high-impact projects; and 2) the Early Independence Program ($8 million is requested for FY 2012) which would allow talented young scientists to move directly from a doctoral degree to an independent research career.

House of Representatives Goes on Budget Cutting Spree 

With the Continuing Resolution (CR) currently funding the government through the first five months of FY 2011 about to expire on March 4, the House of Representatives turned its attention to completing action on this year's funding.   Determined to reduce federal spending to deal with the nation's deficits and debt, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) on February 9 announced a series of cuts to programs, including the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, EPA, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and other programs.

This was not enough for the GOP Caucus in the House and more reductions were proposed on February 11.  In addition, the new Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announced that the House would consider the legislation, H.R.1, under an open rule where anyone wishing to amend the bill could do so.  This led to over 580 proposed amendments to cut programs further and in some cases to restore the earlier cuts.  Of those, the House adopted 65.

Given the time constraints, the leaders wanted to finish the bill in three days, many of the amendments never made it to the floor, but enough did to produce provisions that the White House has indicated are clearly unacceptable and would lead to a presidential veto, if they survived the process in the Senate.  These included many amendments prohibiting spending of federal funds to implement the Health Care Reform Law, prohibitions against EPA regulating greenhouse gases, prohibitions on spending for certain White House personnel, and cuts to climate change and energy programs that would reduce the U.S. over-reliance on fossil fuels.

The Census Bureau became a particular target during the amendment frenzy.  Already operating under a $73 million reduction from its FY 2011 proposed level, the Bureau lost another $80 million when Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) succeeded in transferring these funds to the Economic Development Administration.  However, due to yeoman work by the Census Stakeholder's Group, of which COSSA is a member, other disasters were averted.  A number of folks (Reps. James Lankford (R-OK), Dave Reichert (R-WA), and Connie Mack (R-FL)) wanted to abolish the American Community Survey.  Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) wanted to eliminate all funding, $913 million, for Census' Periodic Programs.

Beyond the original $359 million reduction from its FY 2010 funding, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was the target of only two amendments.  One offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) attacked an already funded grant (see below).  Another was attempt by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) to eliminate "the Elementary and Secondary Education program."  Since no one was sure what he was referring to, the amendment never made it to the House floor.  Thus, the House wound up providing NSF with $6.567 billion for FY 2011, $857 million or 11.5 percent below the request.

For the National Institutes of Health, H.R. 1 cuts $1.63 billion or 5.2 percent below the FY 2010 funding level of $31 billion, leaving the agency with budget of $29.4 billion in FY 2011 (the same level as 2008). The $1.63 billion cut eliminates the $300 million provided by the Global AIDS Fund transfer; reduces the sum available for building and facilities to 22.7 million; decreases the amount available for non-competing grants inflation by $260 million, prorated across all of the NIH institutes, centers and offices; reduces the NIH Common Fund by $48.5 million; and provides a general reduction of $639.5 million in the agency's budget.  Additionally, H.R. 1 stipulates that the average of the total cost of competing research project grants for all of the Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director during fiscal year 2011 shall not exceed $400,000.

An amendment offered by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA)   to restore full funding for NIH was ruled out of order.  The amendment's offset would have eliminated gas and oil subsidies funded through a different appropriations subcommittee.  Markey's amendment was cosponsored by Reps. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL.), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Susan Davis (D-CA). A video of Markey introducing his amendment is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKVNyjOrklM.

Issa Offers Amendments to Rescind NIH and NSF Funding for Selective Research

Issa proposed a series of amendments that would have prohibited selective grants and/or funding of research in certain areas supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and/or the National Science Foundation (NSF).  He later withdrew the amendments.

The Issa amendments would have prohibited the use of NIH funding to support research to:  1) "examine the potential impact of a soda tax on population health; 2) research the use of marijuana in conjunction with opioid medications, such as morphine; 3) study condom use skills in adult males; and 4) study the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana among young adults.  A fifth amendment proposed by Issa would have prohibited the National Science Foundation to study whether video games improve mental health for the elderly.

The recently renamed Coalition to Promote Research (CPR and formerly the Coalition to Protect Research), to more accurately reflect the mission "to promote public health, innovation and fundamental knowledge through scientific research" sent a letter to House members urging defeat of the amendments.   CPR organizations represent hundreds of thousands of scientists, physicians, health care providers, and patients who support federal investments in basic and applied biomedical and behavioral research.  COSSA co-chairs the Coalition.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), H.R. 1 sets the agency's budget at $5,742 billion for FY 2011 of which $750 million will be from agency transfers. The agency is also prohibited to acquire "real property, equipment, construction, and renovation of facilities."  Additionally it requires that $523.5 million "shall remain available until expended for the Strategic National Stockpile." 

Another amendment, sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) cut $42 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).  Weiner seemed disturbed by the extravagance of USIP's new headquarters building in Washington.  Weiner also succeeded in restoring funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program at the expense of NASA.  The House also approved Rep. Bill Pascrell's (D-NJ) amendment to move $555 million from the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security to restore funding for Firefighters Assistance Grants.

The action now shifts to the Senate and the White House.  With both Houses of Congress on recess until February 28, there is not much time for the Senate to act, and for agreement among the House, Senate and the White House.  One alternative is to extend the current CR at Fiscal 2010 levels, with some anomalies such as the Census Bureau funded at almost the FY 2011 requested level, or no agreement is reached and the government shuts down!  Stay tuned!

On February 15, the American Society of Criminology and COSSA presented a congressional briefing, Crime and Imprisonment:  How to Reduce Both.  Based on the current issue of Criminology and Public Policy, which courtesy of its publisher Wiley-Blackwell was distributed to the almost 100 people attending the session, the briefing focused on the lead paper by Professors Daniel Nagin of Carnegie-Mellon University, and Steven Durlauf of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

After brief opening remarks by Thomas Blomberg, editor of the Journal and Dean of Criminology at Florida State University, and Richard Rosenfeld, special editor of the current issue and Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, Nagin and Durlauf summarized their paper.  Responses to their ideas followed.  They were delivered by former Attorney General and Governor of Pennsylvania Richard Thornburgh, former Boston, New York and Los Angeles Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, current Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs Laurie Robinson, and Cambridge University and University of Maryland Criminology Professor Lawrence Sherman.

The Nagin-Durlauf thesis is that we can reduce imprisonment and crime by shifting from severity-based to certainty-based sanction policies and by shifting resources from corrections to policing.  While admitting that there are some potential crime prevention effects of imprisonment such as incapacitation, the literature, they contend, has established only a modest, marginal deterrent effect of increasing already lengthy prison sentences. Furthermore, they maintain that there is little evidence that incarceration has a specific deterrent effect on criminal activity. 

Rather than focusing on severity as a method of deterrence, Nagin and Durlauf argued for a focus on deterring crime in the first place.  That can occur, they asserted, by creating certainty of apprehension through deployment of police in effective ways.  According to the authors, the evidence indicates, that with the right deployment, such as hot spots and problem-oriented policing, there is a substantial marginal deterrent effect on crime prevention.

Therefore, in an era of budget difficulties, especially in states where prison costs are a substantial part of state spending, Nagin and Durlauf recommended that policing should get a larger share of decreasing crime and criminal justice budgets.  They also suggested creating mechanisms to move resources from state-level corrections to local-level policing.

Since there are still lots of questions regarding policing and sentencing, Nagin and Durlauf also called for a "scientifically sound and policy relevant research program" with the National Institute of Justice as "the natural candidate for taking on this mantle."  Among the items for such a research program, they suggested, are examinations of the severity effects of shorter sentences that occur in some European countries, and the policy of targeted identification of high rate offenders.  They also called for better studies of stigma and stereotyping effects of imprisonment and improved state level data on sentencing.

Commentary from Bratton, Thornburgh, Robinson and Sherman

Bratton citing his forty years of experience declared he knows what works.  "Cops count, police matter," he asserted.   The Durlauf and Nagin study talks about things that have already been done.  In NYC and LA "we embraced community policing and problem solving policing."  Crime went down; incarceration went down, he proclaimed.   If police can control behavior, they can change behavior, he stated.  He talked about his experiences in NYC and LA, noting tactics including stop and frisk that although controversial are supported by the public.  Police actions focusing on prevention can reduce incarceration, especially for minority males, he contended.   The current financial difficulties faced by states and municipalities will provide experiments to see if cities can maintain these reductions, he concluded.

Hons. Richard Thornburgh & William Bratton

Thornburgh said he was there to bring "a reality check" to the feasibility for implementing the Durlauf and Nagin recommendations.    He believes it would be difficult to translate the savings from reducing prison populations into more money for the police, particularly in the current difficult financial straits the states now face.  "There is a long list of competitors" for the saved dollars, he declared.  He spoke strongly in favor of improving services for offenders both in prison and when they are released.  He acknowledged, however, that this is a "difficult sell politically" because of public resentment against lawbreakers receiving government services.  "This is a visceral thing," he commented.  He called for more research, delighting the academics, particularly on public attitudes and cost/benefit analyses of the paper's proposals.  He also recommended finding champions in the public sphere for the Durlauf/Nagin proposals.

Robinson applauded the session for having academics reaching out to policymakers and not just talking to each other.  She urged criminologists to become more "pragmatic and politically intelligent," so that policymakers will act on science, not anecdotes.   She advised using the rubric of "public safety,"  as this phrase resonated with policymakers.    She discussed the initiatives in the President's FY 2012 budget for research and statistics, including the three percent set-aside as well as the Evidence Integration Initiative and the What Works Clearinghouse.  She argued for strengthening research at the National Institute of Justice and the implementation of the recommendations in the recent National Research Council report.    She noted that there are real world examples of the reforms Durlauf/Nagin suggest.  She cited the Justice Reinvestment Movement, one of whose strong supporters is Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Office of Justice Programs.   She worried that the current financial difficulties, particularly cutbacks in funding for parole and probation programs, could reverse recent reductions in prison spending in some states. 

Finally, Sherman advised focusing on the front end of the crime problem - prevention - rather than the back end - imprisonment.   "People love police and hate prisons," he asserted.  It is also very politically difficult to reduce prison spending by releasing offenders.  We have made considerable progress, he contended with 'smart focused policing," e.g. hot spots.  It is now time, he argued for "offender management policing," which would have the police take on more of a parole and probation function.  It would divert low risk offenders from the criminal justice system and could include home visits, drug rehabilitation, and not sending first time offenders off to prison.  At the same time, the police can hold the "Sword of Damocles" over offenders heads in that if they don't shape up, they can be charged with the crime they have committed.  It is also time to spend considerably more funds on policing rather than prisons, Sherman proclaimed.  In the U.S. it is about 50-50; whereas in Britain, spending on police is three times more than spending on prisons.  Sherman cited the beginning of modern policing under Sir Robert Peel as the model for the new way of policing.  The test of success is not punishment, but reductions in crime, he concluded.

On February 14, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) joined the Education Deans Alliance and the National Academy of Education in co-sponsoring a Capitol Hill Briefing on the Payoffs of Long-Term Investment in Education Research.

The session stemmed from the premise that education research based on long-term funding has led to important payoffs for education policy and practice in such areas as resource allocation, school and classroom organization, and the education and evaluation of teachers.

Susan Fuhrman, President of Teachers College, Columbia University, founding director and chair of the Management Committee of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), and President of the National Academy of Education, introduced and moderated the session.

John Fantuzzo, Professor of Human Relations in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, spoke about children who are "left behind" because of public health or family risk situations.  Bridget Terry Long, professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, described an experiment to simplify the college-aid application process by providing on-site assistance at H&R Block Tax Centers.

Robert H. Meyer, research professor and director of the Value-Added Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, discussed the contributions of his center which focuses on the development, implementation, and use of statistical methods to measure the value-added contributions of schools and teachers to student achievement.  Brian Rowan, Professor in the School of Education, and research professor at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, explained his thirteen-year study of comprehensive school reform programs by examining the effectiveness of three large programs, the Accelerated Schools Project, America's Choice, and Success for All.

Michael S. McPherson, President of the Spencer Foundation, and Ruby Takanishi, President of the Foundation for Child Development, provided the private foundation perspective.  McPherson called for larger studies that will provide "decisive answers to well-defined questions."

For more information go to:  http://www.aera.net/Default.aspx?id=11330.

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Division of Special Populations (DSP) is seeking input from the scientific community regarding models and best practices in the development of sustainable research capacity at non-research intensive institutions of higher education with the long term goal of conducting health disparities research that will address the mission of NICHD:  "To ensure that every person is born healthy and wanted, that women suffer no harmful effects from reproductive processes, and that all children have the chance to achieve their full potential for healthy and productive lives, free from disease or disability, and to ensure the health, productivity, independence, and well-being of all people through optimal rehabilitation."

DSP, created to strengthen the Institute's commitment to ensuring the health and well-being of children, adults, families, and communities by addressing and eliminating health disparities through the participation of diverse populations in biomedical and behavioral research within the United States and abroad, recently completed a review of it program and initiatives addressing building and sustaining research capacity.

The DSP program review was followed by a consultative meeting with representatives from the scientific community to identify models of building sustainable research programs at non-research intensive institutions. The meeting participants asked DSP to:

1.        Identify and document best practices in developing research infrastructure and capacity in non-research intensive institutions.

2.        Address challenges that faculty members  face in participating in research, such as heavy teaching loads and lack of authority to identify and compete for federal research funding.

3.        Maintain successful components of current initiatives (e.g. Extramural Associates Program) that address strengthening offices of sponsored programs.

4.       Consider the changing demographics in the U.S, and the need to address groups that have not been recipients of research resources to develop infrastructure and capacity.

5.        Include Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as a theme to address sustainable research and training programs.

Respondents are asked to describe the challenges in establishing sustainable research programs. Examples of challenges include, but are not limited to:  

1.        Creation of a culture in which original research and facilitating research literacy are valued activities.

2.        Design of innovations in creating adequate time for conducting original research.

3.        Implementation of a research agenda that supports the mission of the institution as well as reflects the national research agenda.

4.       Design of innovative approaches to creating a critical mass of independent biomedical and bio-behavioral researchers at non-research intensive institutions.

5.        Encouragement of interdisciplinary research across departments.

6.       Motivation of undergraduate and/or graduate students to become involved in research.

7.        Formulation of approaches to enhance research infrastructure and capacity at institutions.

DSP is also seeking possible solution and ask respondents to describe innovative capacity building approaches to address these as well as any other challenges listed.

DSP will accept responses until June 21, 2011 via email to NICHD's DSP at: [email protected].  Responses should be marked with the RFI identifier, NOT-HD-11-006.   For each response, DSP ask that respondents are asked to provide (1) brief background information, (2) define the challenge, and (3) describe the potential solution. Responses are expected to be 500 words or less for each challenge and/or solution.

It is noted that the RFI is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation.  The Notice is a reissue of NOT-HD-10-016.  Individuals and/or institutions which responded to the earlier notice may provide additional responses.

Inquiries about the RFI should be directed to:  Regina Smith James, Director, DSP, NICHD, 301-435-2692; or [email protected].

According to AHRQ, systems design research examines interactions among system components and their possible impact on quality and cost. Redesigns are attempts to change existing designs in ways that enhance value.  AHRQ recognizes that the health care delivery systems are complex systems that involve both social and technical aspects.  The announcement points out that these systems are characterized by dynamic interchanges with their environments (e.g., markets, payers, regulators, and consumers) and interactions among internal system components. These components include people, physical settings, technologies, care processes, and organization (e.g., rules, structure, information systems, communication, rewards, work flow, culture.

Research career priorities cited by the agency  include the development of researchers interested in conducting rigorous demonstrations and evaluations that show which system designs and redesigns are most effective, under what circumstances, and for whom.  Applicants may also focus their research and career development plans on strategies utilized to foster the dissemination and uptake of evidence-based delivery system designs and practices.  They can also focus their plans on a wide range of issues within delivery system research, including: the organization and management of health care delivery (e.g., primary care medical home, the development of accountable care organizations, other forms of bundling care); strategies for increasing providers' compliance with evidence-based guidelines; transition support for patients with complex health care needs, including ways to reduce unnecessary re-hospitalization; care delivery and coordination for chronic care patients; and payment and reporting strategies for improving access, quality, and/or the value and administration of health care and its delivery. 

Applicants are encouraged to: ground their proposed projects in theory,  linking designs to expected outcomes; employ longitudinal designs and mixed analytic methods (e.g. quantitative and qualitative) as appropriate to their research questions of interest; and assess and measure the influence of contextual factors in projects focusing on the implementation of redesign initiatives. 

AHRQ further encourage applications to evaluate practices of particular importance to priority and studies of how to implement and spread these practices within and across safety net institutions.

Information and details on the scope, eligibility, deadlines, and application procedures for these grants can be found at: http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/training/trainix.htm#indlg, or  http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/.  Inquiries can also be addressed to:  Kay Anderson, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ; 301-427-1555; or [email protected].