Fwd: FW: Sad News about NICHD/NIH: The Deconstruction of America's Sci entific

[Martin Brown <martin_brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

pen-l's might find the following of interest.  It
shows how deeply the current administration is willing
to go to enforce right wing ideology in the federal
government.  Traditionally NIH has been relatively
exempt from this kind of this.  But the there are now
no limits on imposing a "business model" of
government.  It not just at the Pentagon that the Bush
Admin is determined to destroy any vestige of civil
service independence. There is also a whole series of
outrages at NCI including an attempt to intimidate NCI
scientists into endorsing the false theory that
abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer (this
back-fired and failed because the scientific community
mobilized to refute this at a high level scientific
meeting) and to make all kinds of sleazy arrangements
to basically have NCI become a pawn of the private
biotech industry (machinations ongoing - but this
caused an outraged account in the usually pro-NCI
insider newsletter THE CANCER LETTER).  Also there
have been instances of flagrant interference of the
grant review process for grants offensive to the
Christian right (e.g. research on HIV-AIDS and
cervical cancer screening for sex workers).

Of course the contracting out of government work idea
was invented by none other than Al Gore.  But the Bush
Adm as pushed it to a degree that Gore could only
imagine in his worst (or is it best) dreams.

> > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:34:13 -0400
> > From:       Richard Lerner <richard.lerner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi All:  I write to you about some quite bad
> budget and management
> news
> > about NIH and, more particularly, about NICHD,
> where, as many of you
> > know, I serve on the Board of Scientific
> Counselors (BSC).  The news
> is
> > not good for either the extramural or the
> intramural research program
> > or, for that matter, for science in the nation in
> general.  Some or
> all
> > of you may know this information and/or may have
> learned about an
> > analogous situation with NSF.  However, in the
> interest of best
> > preparing us for the new realities we face, I
> thought I'd share this
> > information with everyone.
> >
> > On June 6, I attended the semi-annual BSC meeting.
>  The meeting began
> > with a presentation about the state of NICHD/NIH
> from Duane Alexander,
> > the Director of NICHD.  The members of the Board
> (who, other than me,
> > are developmental biologists, molecular
> geneticists, and/or
> physicians)
> > were shocked to learn what the current
> administration is doing to
> > dismantle-in the name of management efficiency-the
>  scientific
> > infrastructure of the nation.  President Bush
> (through the OMB) is
> > introducing a management system wherein ALL
> government functions of
> NIH
> > (and of HHS more generally) are being contracted
> out to the private
> > sector.  In addition, this outsourcing mandate is
> being coupled with a
> > consolidation mandate.
> >
> > To illustrate, ALL non tenure or non-tenure-track
> scientist positions
> at
> > NIH are being outsourced to private bidders,
> including staff from the
> > level of secretaries, grant managers, personnel
> and human resources
> > staff, and even technicians (who are often Ph.D.
> or M.D. level
> > employees)!  In addition, functions retained by
> NIH
> > are going to be integrated with comparable
> functions across ALL of HHS
> > (in the name of a concept labeled "one institute,
> one agency, one
> > department").  For example, there will be one
> personnel component in
> HHS
> > (although it will be located at four sites across
> the nation)   -- and
> > therefore one office to decide on hiring,
> promotion, and retention
> (and
> > this will involve scientists as well).  In
> addition, to the extent
> that
> > there is a grant management function (or any other
> "non-government"
> > function) retained in HHS, there will be one
> office to manage grants
> and
> > contracts, one office to approve expenditures,
> space allocations, new
> > buildings, etc.
> >
> > Given the outsourcing and consolidation directives
> from the
> > administration/OMB, an extramural grant recipient
> may, when he or she,
> > calls his or her grant manager not be calling an
> NICHD person who is
> > familiar with the nature of NICHD-supported
> research.  Instead, the
> > colleague will be talking to either a
> non-government person whose
> > background may as likely (or more likely in my
> view) be in managing
> real
> > estate, or to a government person who has managed
> pharmaceutical
> > contracts for drug distribution, than to a person
> whose background is
> in
> > health or human development.   Across NIH and, in
> fact across the
> entire
> > federal government, more than 850,000 jobs (more
> than 1/3 of the work
> > force) will lose their jobs due to outsourcing.
> >
> > There is more news to tell but none of it is any
> better.  For example,
> > the 04 NICHD budget is going to increase-by one
> measure-by 2%
> (to
> > almost $1.2 billion).  However, if one factors in
> inflation, and the
> > bioterrorism "tax" on NICHD, the net effect is a
> budget cut.  A
> > comparable situation exists for all of NIH.
> Moreover, because the 03
> > budget year was the last year of the five year
> budget doubling period
> > promised to NIH by the Congress (wherein the
> overall size of the NIH
> > budget was in fact doubled), it is unlikely that
> for the remainder of
> > the current administration NIH will received any
> appreciable budget
> > increases; certainly the increases will not even
> match the inflation
> > rate.
> >
> > Obviously, allocation of funds to support
> extramural research grant
> > projects, and to maintain the intramural research
> program, will be
> > affected in substantial ways by these changes.  In
> addition, a new,
> > extramural grant payment system will, in the long
> run, also negatively
> > affect the research enterprise in the nation.
> >
> > In past years' budget hearings, the NIH director
> has always argued to
> > Congress (and to the administration) that NIH
> needed an annual base
> > budget that could not be reduced because of the
> fact that extramural
> > grants were awarded for up to five year periods.
> Thus, in order to
> > honor obligations to PIs in years 02-05, money for
> these long-term
> > obligations needed to be included in any new NIH
> budget.
> >
> > The current administration does not like this
> system, and wants as
> much
> > as possible to start anew each year to set the
> annual NIH budget.  To
> > achieve this OMB will test this year with several
> new NIH grants (of
> > which 15 will be in NICHD) a system where ALL
> approved direct and
> > indirect funding for five years is paid in full in
> Year 1.
> > Unfortunately, universities will not be able to
> invest this prepaid
> > money.  It will have to lie, unspent but
> encumbered and uninvested,
> > until used by the PI in accordance with the
> five-year budget.  While,
> at
> > first blush, this system may seem to have some
> attractive features for
> > PIs and universities, it will in actually have an
> insidious affect on
> > the total amount of extramural grant dollars
> available to the
> scientific
> > community.  If, as noted above, the NIH budget is
> not increased for
> the
> > rest of the Bush administration, however long that
> may be, there will
> > therefore be a functional decrease in the total
> amount of extramural
> > funding available to PIs.  However, because, to
> fund the full-payment
> > model there will have to be an increase in the NIH
> budget (for
> instance
> > in the first year the model is tested), then NIH
> will likely be the
> > target of an actual budget decrease in Year 2 of
> the model and beyond.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this overall bleak picture of the
> future of NICHD, NIH,
> > and of the scientific infrastructure of our nation
> is not being
> > adequately discussed by the friends of NIH, by
> scientific
> organizations,
> > or by the groups that advocate for funding to
> address particular
> > diseases.  Elias Zerhouni, NIH Director, has a
> meeting scheduled with
> > HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to make the case for
> NIH being exempted
> > from OMB's outsourcing and consolidation mandates,
> and from the test
> of
> > the multi-year funding model.  However, there is
> little reason (in my
> > view, probably no reason) to be optimistic about
> Thompson being
> > interested or able to change things.  The BSC
> learned that these
> > mandates came from the highest levels of the
> administration.
> >
> > Accordingly, the only thought I have about how we
> might have any
> > influence on these decisions is to (a) talk with
> our administrative
> and
> > researcher colleagues at colleges and universities
> across the nation;
> > (b) together, go to our representatives and
> senators to see if we can
> > elicit understanding of these issues and an active
> willingness to try
> to
> > take actions to counter these approaches to the
> management (actually,
> to
> > the mismanagement) of science; and (c) work to
> support as a candidate
> > for the next presidential election a person who
> has the vision and
> > understanding requisite to not just maintain but
> to enhance the
> > scientific infrastructure of our nation.  I look
> forward to your
> > comments.  Best regards, Rich
> >
> >
> > Richard M. Lerner
> > Bergstrom Chair in Applied Developmental Science
> Eliot-Pearson
> > Department of Child Development Tufts University
> > 105 College Avenue
> > Medford, MA 02155
> >
> > 617-627-5558
> > 617-627-5596 (Fax)
> >
> > richard.lerner@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >