🚀 go-pugleaf

Some partial success on attempts to cancel funding for peer-reviewed
projects at NSF & NIH is reported; problems remain. -- 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----------------------------
APA PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE ACTION ALERT

TO:       APA Funding Bulletin Recipients

FROM:     Brian L. Wilcox, Ph.D.
          Director, APA Public Policy Office

DATE:     May 22, 1992

RE:       Congressional Action on Funding of Peer-Reviewed
          Research

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

     Over the past few weeks we have issued several action alerts
informing researchers of an attack by the Senate Appropriations
Committee on specific research grants at NSF and NIH.  The Senate
committee had proposed that funding be rescinded for 34 research
projects that had already been peer-reviewed and awarded funding.
The 31 NSF grants were listed by title in the bill and the three
NIH grants were described in report language.  We felt (and
continue to believe) that the actions of the Senate represent a
fundamental threat to the integrity of the merit/peer review system
and, more broadly, to the integrity of the federal research
programs themselves.

     I write now to thank those who responded to APA's call to
action and to update you on the situation.  We were exceptionally
gratified by the response of the psychological science community to
this situation.  Staff members on Capitol Hill told us that they
heard from psychology "loud and clear."  So, THANKS to all who
wrote, called, faxed, telegrammed, and e-mailed!  Your
congressional representatives heard you and you made a difference!

UPDATE

     First, the good news.  House and Senate Conferees did
eliminate the listing of grant titles from the text of the
legislation.  The part of the rescission bill dealing with NIH
directs NIH to reduce funding of the National Institute of Dental
Research by $183,000; this is half of the amount originally
proposed by the Senate.  No mention is made in the conference
report of where within NIDR these cuts should be made.  The part
addressing NSF now directs the agency to reduce its current year
spending by $2 million, but no longer gives explicit directions to
NSF regarding where those cuts should occur.  In other words, the
research community was successful in getting Congress to drop the
listing of specific grant titles from the actual text of the
legislation.

     Now the bad news.  Senate conferees fought long and hard to
retain the listing of NSF grants they felt were "frivolous."  While
Senate conferees lost the battle to keep the grant titles in the
bill, they did place the listing in the conference report, and
urged NSF to achieve the targeted $2 million spending reduction by
eliminating this grants.  The conference report suggests that the
31 NSF grants are not a "prudent use of taxpayer funds."  Further,
the conference report directly criticizes the process by which NSF
makes its award decisions and urges NSF to review its grant
selection process and report back to the conferees on how the
Foundation can modify its process to assure that only research that
"is focused on the fundamental laws and systems of science, that
supports the nation's technological base, that supports the
nation's economic competitiveness, and that improves the nation's
mathematical and science education endeavors" be supported.  One
message contained in this language, implicit but bordering on
explicit, is that NSF should avoid funding basic social science
research.  At present it does not appear that NSF is likely to
withhold funding from approved grants, but the conference report
request regarding the peer/merit review process and priority
setting at NSF will have to be followed up.  We have included the
full text of the conference report language addressing NSF at the
end of this memo.

     The rescission bill was passed by Congress yesterday, and it
now appears that the President will sign the bill.  While we should
be pleased that we were able to keep the worst language out of the
text of the bill, it is very clear that some of our legislators
need to be informed of the value of basic and applied social and
behavioral science and the importance and fragility of the peer
review system.  We have our work cut out for the foreseeable
future.

     In the coming weeks and months APA will be working with other
social and behavioral science representatives, including the
Consortium of Social Science Associations and the Federation of
Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, as well as
representatives from other science fields, to develop a concerted
strategy to inform Congress of the value of basic research and the
strengths of current merit/peer review systems.  This effort will
be a central component of APA's science advocacy program.

     Again, we thank you for your assistance.  As bad as the
current situation is, it would have been much worse had you not let
your legislators hear from you.  We welcome and encourage your
continued involvement as we address this problem.  Feel free to
contact any of the following APA staff members about this issue:

Brian Wilcox        (202) 336-5931      APAPPBLW@GWUVM (bitnet)
Barbara Calkins     (202) 336-5935      APAPPBJC@GWUVM
Amy Kardell         (202) 336-5932      APAPPALK@GWUVM
Pat Kobor           (202) 336-5933      APAPPPCK@GWUVM

We can be reached by FAX at (202) 336-6063.




                  CONFERENCE REPORT, H.R. 4990
   FISCAL YEAR 1992 RESCISSIONS IN NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

     The conferees agree to a general rescission in research and
related activities of $2,000,000, subject to the normal
reprogramming guidelines.  This amount is in lieu of the Senate
proposal to rescind $346,000 from the unobligated balances in 31
individual grant projects as proposed by the Senate.  The House
proposed no rescission in this area.
     The conferees have agreed to this rescission of $2,000,000
because it represents the approximate total amount originally
awarded by the Foundation for the 31 research projects contained
in the original Senate amendment.  The conferees do not believe
that these 31 awards represent a prudent use of taxpayer funds,
particularly when the Foundation expects to turn down nearly
38,000 grant proposals in fiscal year 1992 due to insufficient
appropriations.  As a result, in connection with this general
rescission, the conferees strongly urge the National Science
Foundation to review the option of eliminating funds which remain
unobligated for the 31 research projects contained in the
original Senate amendment.
     These awards are: "Middle Class Lawyers: The transformation
of small firm practice"; "Monogamy and aggression"; Holism in
Psychobiology in the Twentienth Century"; Affective Bases of
Person Perception"; The representation of Attitudes"; Economic
opportunity in urban America 1850-1870"; A historic study of
Japan's famous slogan 'Rich Nation, Strong Army' and its impact
on Japanese Technology"; Status attainment in Chinese urban
areas"; "Firm age and wages"; "American perceptions of justice:
An East-West collaborative study"; "Herd behavior: Micro-
foundations and evidence from decision-making by firms and about
the global environment"; "Analysis of mental computation
performance and estimation strategy-use among Japanese students
and curricular of these topics in Japanese schools"; "The timing
of control and stock externalities in the presence of learning
with application to global warming"; "Conflict paradigms and the
instance theory of automization"; "Exemplar-based processing in
social judgment"; "A history of applied science in France, 1801-
1941"; "Emerging coalitions in the Soviet All-Union and
Republican Legislature"; "Compensation system design, employment
and firm performance: An analysis of French microdata and a
comparison to the U.S.A."; "The structures and processes of
building provisions: A case study of master-planned communities";
"The transformation of the large law firm in England: A
comparative analysis"; "The evolution of optimizing behavior and
of attitudes towards risk"; "Applying space technology to global
change: Values, institutions and decisions"; "Traditional and
non-traditional forms of popular religion in Sicily"; "Auctions
with entry/exit decisions"; "Maintenance of a polymorphism in
mating behavior in swordfish"; "The systematic study of Senate
elections"; "The late prehistoric political economy of the Upper
Mantaro Valley in Peru"; "Sexual mimicry of swallowtail
butterflies"; "Song production in freely behaving birds";
"American legal realism, empirical social science and the Law
professor's professional identity"; "Norms, self-interest and
taxpayer's decisions: Adaption to 1986 tax reform".
     In addition, the conferees are troubled by the selection
process that was used to select these particular awards.  Recent
reports by the General Accounting Office and the Office of
Technology Assessment have reflected general criticisms of the
grant selection process and the conferees believe the NSF should
take the necessary steps to address these complaints.
     The conferees believe the Foundation should emphasize
research that is focused on the fundamental laws and systems of
science, that supports the nation's technological base, that
supports the nation's economic competitiveness, and that improves
the nation's mathematics and science education endeavors.  As a
result, the conferees direct the NSF to review its grant
selection process and report to the Congress on how it intends to
ensure that projects which do not meet these criteria go
unsupported with taxpayer dollars in the future.  The conferees
expect this report within 90 days of the release of the National
Academy of Sciences current study of the Foundation's selection
process.