FASEBnews MARCH 22, 2000
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Office of Public Affairs
9650 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Md. 20814-3998
Contact: Paulette W. Campbell
(301) 571-7795
[email protected]
NASA should increase support for Peer-Reviewed, Life Sciences Research Programs in FY 2001
Washington, D.C. -- Investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed Life Sciences research at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should be given the highest priority in fiscal 2001, according to a statement by David G. Kaufman, M.D., Ph.D., the president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) to the House of Representatives Science subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Dr. Kaufman, a professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the School of Medicine University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, appeared before the committee today on behalf of NASA.
In recent years, NASA has revised its review process to resemble the National Institutes of Health model of peer review. NASA should continue to increase the proportion of its research dollars that are awarded through this process, Dr. Kaufman said.
In addition, he said, "Grants should be funded at higher levels for longer periods of times, and [NASA] should increase the number of application deadlines per year. Both of these changes would likely encourage more scientists to pursue NASA-related research, and this would improve the applicant pool. With stronger proposals to choose from and increased continuity of ongoing efforts, program productivity would rise and the public's return on the nation's space research investment would increase."
Dr. Kaufman applauded NASA's efforts to increase its interactions with the academic research community and talked about the importance of maintaining a consistent schedule of research flights for scientists pursuing experiments dependent on space as a variable. His prepared statement is attached and can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.faseb.org.
FASEB is comprised of 20 societies with more than 60,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. The Federation serves the interests of biomedical and life scientists, particularly in regards to public policy issues; facilitates coalition activities among its member societies; and, disseminates information on biological research through scientific conferences and publications.
# # #
TESTIMONY BY DAVID G. KAUFMAN, M.D., PH.D., FASEB PRESIDENT, BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, MARCH 22,2000
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gordon and members of the subcommittee:
My name is David G. Kaufman. I am a Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in the School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am a physician, a specialist in pathology, and I teach medical students and resident physicians as well as graduate students. I also conduct cancer research. I do basic research that may be categorized as functional genomics, and I do translational research in which I apply basic research techniques to study a human disease, endometrial cancer, which I encountered in my clinical activities.
This year I am privileged to serve as the president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, or FASEB as we call ourselves. FASEB is the largest organization of life scientists in the United States. FASEB was founded in 1912, and today is comprised of 20 societies with a combined membership of more than 60,000 scientists. Our membership includes scientists in the disciplines of physiology, pharmacology and cell biology, among others, with significant expertise in NASA scientific endeavors. It is on behalf of these investigators that I appear before you today to share our thoughts on the unique contributions NASA-funded science makes to biomedical research.
Each year, FASEB brings together representatives of our member societies to review the biomedical research programs at various federal agencies. After considerable deliberation and debate, these scientists produce recommendations for each agency examined. The proposals from this year's conference are contained in a report entitled, Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Science Research FY 2001. This report is available on the FASEB website at www.faseb.org. My testimony is based on their recommendations regarding the scientific opportunities that NASA life sciences programs should seek to exploit.
NASA'S mission is to "advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system and the universe, and use the environment of space for research." NASA has articulated its strategic goals for biological research in the form of two "Pillars of Biology." The "Pillars" involves two interrelated themes: Bioastronautics, which is the generation and application of the knowledge and technology that will permit humans to live in an environment away from the Earth's surface; and Astrobiology, which is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and destiny of life throughout the universe (including Earth).
From our perspective as a federation of research scientists, we pay particular attention to certain NASA life sciences programs. These include extramural initiatives that are funded primarily through the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) and secondarily through the Office of Space Sciences (OSS) (Table 1). We commend NASA's efforts over the past three years to increase its interactions with the academic research community through partnerships with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the creation of academic consortiums focused on specific research questions. The National Space Biomedical Research Institute was established in 1997, to pursue research on the development of countermeasures designed to ameliorate deleterious effects of space-flight on astronauts. In 1998, the Astrobiology Research Institute was formed to investigate the origins of life on Earth and in the universe at large. Recent personnel appointments have also enhanced the life science focus at NASA, and growth in NASA research capacity has increased through expansion of the aforementioned National Space Biomedical Research Institute. These actions, and the fact that NASA has provided increased resources to improve its biological and biomedical programs at a time when the agency itself is experiencing funding reductions, demonstrate that NASA is committed to its research mission in the life sciences.
What I would like to emphasize today is that research conceived and initiated by individual scientists, investigator-initiated research, has been the key to the nation's extraordinary progress in science. Our country's global scientific prowess is the result of funding creative scientists to do excellent research in their laboratories. We have required them to compete for support, under scrutiny of their peers and competitors, in the marketplace of ideas. The large number of U.S. Nobel Prize winners in the scientific categories can be attributed to scientific innovation and progress produced by this mechanism. The competitive, peer-reviewed system has excellence at its core. Recognizing this, NASA has taken strides to expand this funding mechanism within its programs. NASA should continue these efforts to increase the proportion of its research dollars distributed through this model. This will increase the research productivity of the program as a whole, and maximize the scientific return on our country's space research investment. Based on my more than 40 years of experience, I truly believe merit-review by a comprehensive panel of experts is the most efficient, cost-effective and productive way to select research.
The NASA Life Sciences Division currently provides multi-year grant support to about 400 researchers through its programs in Gravitational Biology and Ecology, Biomedical Research and Countermeasures and Advanced Human Support Technology (Table 1). An indication of the quality of NASA-supported research is the fact that the scientists in these three programs collectively published nearly 1,500 papers during a 12-month period in 1998-99. In response to the annual NASA Research Announcement, roughly 450 investigator-initiated grant applications are received each year. In the past two years, 25 to 30 percent of the submitted proposals were judged as meritorious and worthy of funding by the peer-review system. Regrettably, due to budget constraints, NASA has only been able to support about 18 percent of these high-quality grant applications.
The continuity of the NASA investigator-initiated research program is also impeded by its current annual review cycle. A single annual submission date constrains the development of the highest-quality pool of applicants because the lengthy delay between review cycles imposes a hardship on researchers who miss the funding cut off and then must wait another year to try again. If funding for investigator-initiated research were increased, this would permit NASA to fund grants at higher levels for longer periods of time. It might also permit the addition of a second review cycle, which would encourage more scientists to enter the applicant pool.
At times, the research community has criticized NASA for weaknesses within its research portfolio. During the early 1990s, FASEB urged NASA to revise its review and selection procedures for life sciences research. These changes were made and have contributed to the strength of the current program. More recently, in 1998, one FASEB member society, the American Society of Cell Biology, issued a critical report on aspects of NASA's research program. I have included this report with my testimony as Appendix I. Similarly, some issues of concern are explored in the recent National Research Council study examining biotechnology research on the International Space Station. As in any research endeavor, projects must continuously be assessed for their applicability and contribution to the long-term goal being pursued. Over time, goals and projects change. The nature of basic research is that you do not always achieve the expected outcome. If NASA, as a mission-directed agency, is to fully capitalize on its scientific resources it must remain responsive to such changes in direction and make timely modifications.
In accordance with this need, NASA has placed an increasing emphasis on ground-based research to enhance the quality, depth and breadth of its portfolio. This strategy will facilitate increased understanding of fundamental principals while meeting the challenges, and opportunities, of human habitation in space presented by the space station. NASA currently funds about four ground-based experiments for every flight experiment, and is striving to increase that ratio to 8:1. In doing so, NASA ensures that there is sufficient high-quality research in various scientific disciplines to enable them to select the most promising proposals for further testing on a flight platform. Thus, flight experimental protocols must pass two stages of quality review. The first phase selects standard ground-based projects of relevance to flight issues, and the second phase determines flight access. This stringent peer-review selects for the highest-quality research as well as that most likely to generate important data for the mission at hand.
Table 1.NASA Biological and Biomedical Research Programs
FY 2000 Funding LevelsProgram FY 2000 ProgramTotal FY 2000 Investigator-Initiated Research
Life Sciences Division Programs
Biomedical Research and
Countermeasures $53.0 million $27.9 million
Gravitational Biology and Ecology $38.6 million $21.6 million
Advanced Human Support Technology $29.2 million $10.3 millionOther Life Sciences Research Programs
National Space Biomedical
Research Institute 1/ $14.4 million $10.0 million
Astrobiology Institute 2/ $10.0 million $7.0 million
Exobiology 2/ $8.5 million $8.5 million
TOTALS $153.7 million $85.3 million1/ Jointly funded by the Office of Space Flight and the Life Sciences Division
2/ Funded by the Office of Space Sciences
FASEB recommends that the highest priority within NASA's Life Sciences research program be given to the expansion of the investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed Research and Analysis (R&A) program in order to build the predominantly ground-based research program necessary to support the NASA space station and flight program as a whole.
NASA has also sought to enhance its life sciences research efforts by leveraging funding through research collaborations with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies. A prime example is the NASA-NIH Neurolab Mission. These collaborations represent opportunities for both agencies. NIH institutes bring an enormous body of knowledge in their specialized areas, while NASA brings a special focus on a unique and challenging environment. Current partnerships with NIH include joint ground-based research on cardiovascular dysfunction, bone and muscle wasting and sensory-motor deficits relevant to gravity and the space-flight environment. NASA has also partnered with individual NIH institutes. A partnership with the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders will study the functional genomics of vestibular disorders and a study with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) will examine space radiation susceptibility and resistance at the genomic level.
Likewise, NASA is expanding its research and technology initiatives through collaboration with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in the area of neural regeneration and prostheses. If additional funding were available, NASA could further develop future partnerships with NIH to pursue the mission-oriented research priorities of both agencies and consequently, increase public benefit from both programs. For example, NASA expertise with muscle and bone wasting could be combined with that of the National Institute of Nursing Research to examine issues related to the long-term care problems of the bedridden. At the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, questions regarding the role of weight-bearing activity during musculo-skeletal development could be uniquely addressed by NASA facilities and knowledge. And studies on drug effectiveness in inactive populations could be enhanced by collaboration of scientists funded by NASA and the National In
FASEB therefore supports and encourages NASA's strategy to partner with NIH to develop programs of common interest to both agencies.
I would like to address one other issue that FASEB has regarding the long-term quality and productivity of NASA's investigator-initiated research programs: the impact of decreased research access to space platforms due to cost-overruns in the International Space Station construction budgets. Since the Congress and the Administration decided it was in the nation's interest to pursue a space station, physiological research to support and treat astronauts residing on the station is required. While basic research often follows a long path to fruition, it is by no means static. Long waiting times for access to space is discouraging to scientists pursuing dynamic experiments dependant on space as a variable, and the cancellation of scheduled research flights in order to fund construction is a clear deterrent to developing space-based projects. Furthermore, due to the dynamic nature of science, if we continue to sacrifice our scientific and investigator-base in favor of facility construct
FASEB recommends that NASA administrators make every effort to minimize serious interruptions in conducting biological and biomedical research during this protracted period of space station construction.
In summary, the NASA life science research program represents a significant opportunity for biomedical research. The facilities and expertise of NASA-funded scientists bring a unique perspective to biomedical questions that are increasingly interdisciplinary in nature. Assuming NASA continues to optimize its programs for efficiency and productivity, I believe that it can become an increasingly integral component within the nation's life science initiatives. FASEB scientists recommended in our FY 2001 federal funding report that an increase of $50 million in new money be provided for NASA's investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed life sciences research program. This increase would begin to rectify erosion of the research base due to underfunding during the last several years.
With the strong support of Congress and a continued dialog with the research community, NASA programs will empower scientists across the country to extend the frontiers of knowledge into space while increasing our understanding for what happens while we are here on the ground.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman (and members of the subcommittee), for your consideration of my remarks. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
# # #
RSS