Peer Review Process Under Attack at NIH
Political challenge to Senate appropriations bill may surface in September

As of this writing (August 28), no amendment has been introduced in the Senate that would adversely impact specific National Institutes of Health (NIH) social science grants that had been targeted by conservative House members in July. However, it is possible that an amendment to the Senate Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education (LHHS) appropriations bill will emerge during debate in the fall when senators return from the August recess.

In the meantime, the social science advocacy community is making visits to Capitol Hill to educate Members and their staff about these NIH research grants and peer review. The social science community also is standing by to initiate grass-roots action should an amendment surface in the Senate. Such an amendment likely would attempt to do what the House members narrowly failed to do. Specifically, on July 10, ASA alerted website visitors of a U.S. House of Representative's amendment that, had it passed, would have defunded five National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported studies on sexual behavior and population dynamics. This amendment was defeated by a very slim margin (see below), but now the issue could be raised when the Senate returns from recess in September. Senators Arlen Specter and Tom Harkin are expected to defend the NIH peer review system, should challenges arise.

As scientists with a stake in the integrity of the American system of peer review, ASA members will want to keep abreast of developments here at the ASA website. It may become necessary to voice your support for the NIH peer review process by contacting your Senator, either via phone or email, and request that he/she oppose efforts to eliminate funding for peer-reviewed research. Once specific details become known, ASA will alert the sociological research community and specify what action would be helpful.

July 10 Action Alert:

[Note: The July 10 amendment referred to in this action alert, offered by Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-PA) to defund five NIH grants, was defeated late in the afternoon by a vote of 212 to 210. Fellow Republicans (i.e., Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommitee Chair Ralph Regula (R-OH), Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA), and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) spoke against the proposed amendment. Ranking minority member David Obey (D-WI) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) both defended the funded research and the NIH peer review process against this most recent assault. Thus, no action on your part is required at this point.]

Dear Colleagues:

Today, July 10, an amendment to a National Institutes of Health appropriations bill is being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives. The amendment would deny funding for research on sexual behavior and stop future year funds to specific grantees that have already been awarded grants. More important, this would set a precedent for politically motivated interference in the peer review process on which American research depends to maintain U.S. prominence in basic and applied science. All Members of Congress need to be aware of the serious implications of this amendment to restrict funding for peer-reviewed research.

The Issue in Brief

Various NIH institutes fund studies on sexual behaviors, sexual arousal, and sexual dysfunction, including NICHD, NIDA, and NIMH. Because of a recent effort by conservative Members to limit federal funding for sex research, this line of research is in danger. Members of Congress are raising the issue of federal grants for sexual research today during a House debate on the Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill, claiming that this research is morally wrong and fiscally irresponsible. Representative Patrick Toomey (R-PA) and Representative Chris Chocola (R-IN) put forth an amendment asking that none of the funds made available to NIH for FY 2004 be used to fund four research projects (totaling $1.5 million), three of which address sexual behaviors. This amendment is a threat to the rigorous NIH peer-review process, calling into question the judgment of the scientists who selected these projects for funding.

Your Member of Congress needs to be educated about the importance and rigor of NIH's peer-review process and the danger of political interference in that process.

The scientific review process has determined that:

• Sexual arousal is a legitimate subject for scientific research. Sexual dysfunction contributes to infertility and often is diagnostic of other serious health problems. There is some evidence that sexual dysfunction also contributes to the high U.S. divorce rate.
• NICHD is justified in funding high quality research on sexual arousal in women. Most such research has been done with men only.
• Diminished research in this area will lead to fewer interventions for promoting sexual health and responsible sexual behaviors. The public health consequences could be severe including increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV/AIDS infection, unintended pregnancy, sexual dysfunction, and sexual violence.
• For a project to be funded by NIH, it must be of the highest scientific quality. A group of outside scientists who are qualified to judge its merit rates each project submitted to NIH for quality and relevance. Only one-quarter to one-third of projects submitted rank high enough to be funded. Taxpayers can take comfort in the rigorous scientific merit review process in place at NIH.

To identify your member of Congress, visit Congress.org. Type in your zip code to find your members of Congress and click on information about calling, faxing or emailing your Representative. From that link you can email directly to your U.S. Representative. Include in your message the outcomes of the peer review process listed above, or write your own brief note. Be sure you enter your address to show that you are indeed a constituent, because members of Congress care most about what their own voters' views are.

From the link listed above you can also get your Representative's phone number, since time is short. A member of the representative’s staff will answer the phone. Say that you would like to give your views on an issue that the House will soon be voting on. Explain the amendment is to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill; give a brief description of the issue and the reason for your views. Be sure to leave your contact information so that you may receive a reply letter from your member of Congress.

Please educate Congress on the importance of this to science! Grassroots organizations will be encouraging conservative Representatives to vote to limit or ban research on sexual behavior. U.S. Representatives need to know there is another vital perspective.