🚀 go-pugleaf

FYI--please share this information with your colleagues.
Jim

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cassell                                    CASSELL@UNCVM1.OIT.UNC.EDU
Institute for Research in Social Science       CASSELL@UNCVM1.BITNET
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill       Phone:  919-962-0782
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3355                    Fax:    919-962-4777
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
                             PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE
                                 ACTION ALERT

  TO:       APA Funding Bulletin Recipients

FROM:       Barbara J. Calkins
            Associate Director, Public Policy Office

DATE:       May 5, 1992

  RE:       Threatened Cuts to Funded Research Programs &
            Attack on Peer/Merit Review

***************************************************************

      Last week the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill
taking back, or "rescinding" in Washington jargon, $8.3 billion in
already-approved Fiscal Year 1992 funding.  The rescissions
included specific grants, identified by title, that had already
been peer-reviewed and, in some cases, awarded by federal agencies
including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).  Related legislation developed by the
House of Representatives Appropriations Committee sets broad
rescission targets, allowing federal agencies the latitude to take
cuts from new and as yet unfunded programs rather than reneging on
commitments to ongoing research.  The Senate bill poses serious
problems, and WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW.


BACKGROUND

      The most frightening aspect of the Senate bill is its direct
assault to American science's peer/merit review system.
Heretofore it has been the business of scientists, not Congress, to
decide the merits of individual grant applications.   Such
decisions have traditionally had a scientific basis, and have been
made by other researchers who carefully consider each proposal.
The Senate, on the other hand, has apparently combed through lists
of grant titles and culled out the ones with trivial-sounding
titles, targeting them for termination.  This is an alarming
precedent.

      Another alarming precedent set by the Senate's action is the
rescission of funds that have already been committed or awarded.
Scientists use these commitments to make agreements with their
supporting academic institutions, with colleagues, and with
graduate students, in order to ensure a stable and productive
research enterprise.  While these particular Senate-proposed
rescissions may affect a relatively small number of scientific
investigations, the fact that Congress can arbitrarily reverse
scientifically-based research funding decisions threatens the
stability of the scientific research process in a manner that could
cripple many research programs.


      An additional concern is the apparent focus of the Senate
rescissions on behavioral and social science.  Many of the grants
targeted by the Senate for rescission are from the new Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate of the National
Science Foundation.  Other proposed cuts come at the expense of
behavioral and social research being supported by the National
Institutes of Health--specifically, the dental pain and fear work
of the National Institute of Dental Research.  Clearly, we must
protect psychological research by better educating Members of
Congress about its nature and significance.  We need your help in
doing so.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

      As a constituent, yours is an important voice in the
development of federal science policy and funding decisions.  Your
contacts to Congress MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  We need you to:  1)
Contact your Senators and Member of Congress and ask them to:
Oppose the Senate budget rescissions bill (S.2403), and the
politicization of science.  Tell them that if these rescissions
must occur, then the House approach is more appropriate; and 2)
Contact Senate and House Appropriations Committee members
with the same message.  These individuals are in key positions to
influence the final outcome on this critical issue:

      Senate                                House of
                                             Representatives
      Robert Byrd (D-WV)                     William Natcher(D-KY)

      Tom Harkin (D-IA)                         Carl Pursell (R-MI)
      Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)                   Bob Traxler (D-MI)
      Brock Adams (D-WA)                        Bill Green (D-NY)
      Slade Gorton (R-WA)

      In such contacts you should identify yourself as a scientist
and, if appropriate, as a constituent.  You can raise the issues
outlined above to make your point, and you can
develop them further with details of your own experiences.  You can
make your contact by telephoning, or by Western Union "Public
Opinion Message".

      Telephone - You can reach any Congressional office in
Washington by dialing 202/224-3121 and asking to be connected with
your legislator's office.  Ask to speak with the staff member who
handles research appropriations.  Give your name, affiliation, and
the purpose of your call.  At the conclusion of the conversation,
offer yourself as a contact in the future and give your telephone
number.

      Western Union - Call Western Union at 1-800-325-6000 and ask
to send a "Public Opinion Message."  The cost is $9.95 for 20 words
or less and $3.50 for each additional 20 words.  Address your
message:  The Honorable (Member's Name), U.S. (Senate or
House of Representatives), Washington, D.C.  (20510/House or
20515/Senate).

      If you need additional information, or help in identifying
your Senators or Members of Congress, then send a BITNET message
to:  APASD@GWUVM.  Thanks for your help and support.