Bill Would Promote Drug-Free Labs

Congress debates proposal that could mean loss of grant money after drug conviction WASHINGTON--University and industry researchers may soon be on the front lines of the government’s war on drugs. For the past several weeks Congress has been debating legislation that would cut off federal research funds from any institution or company where illegal drugs are being used. On April 14, Benno C. Schmidt Jr., president of Yale University testified before a Senate subcommittee about the probl em of indirect costs, specifically the need for more federal funding of research facilities at universities. Here is an excerpt of that testimony: Since the earliest years of the modern research partnership which was launched by creation of the NSF the federal government has recognized a need for federal support for the construction of university research facilities as well as for the work conducted within them. Yet in recent years, the commitment to facilities has lapsed. Overall, direct federal funding for construction of research facilities fallen by 95% since the early 1970s. To be sure, indirect reimbursement of builiding costs has remained available under the regulations pertaining to federal grant and contracts. But this recovery is necessarily backward-looking, insecure and inadequate. Aside from the unrealistically long useful lives assigned for certain categories of equipment and facilities, this system is intended to allow the institution over time to recover only yesterday’s cost of performance for yesterday's scientific investigation. As a practical matter, budget constraint. create an incentive for the government to set an arbitrary ceiling on cost recovery rates. And universities are themselves faced with incentives to underestimate their true indirect cost in order to win awards by offering to do research at a lower cost. At the national level this leaves us with a massive cumulative deficit in facilities. The proposal has been joined to annual authorizations for NSF, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Bureau of Standards. Its sponsor, Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pa.), surprised his colleagues when he first offered his amendment during an April21 session of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Within two weeks, Walker’s heavily revised proposal had carried the day, winning a margin of 20 to 7 in its only recorded vote. "We tried to figure out a unique way to fight drug abuse by linking it to federal grants and contracts," says an aide to Walker. "We wanted to use the government’s influence in the business community to bring about a drug-free work environment." At press time Congress was still wrestling with the wording of the amendment. On May 5, the House committee approved a five-page version that would require an employee of any company or organization receiving federal funds to report any conviction on drug-related charges if such actions occurred at work. After it had been notified, the funding agency could move to cut off funds to the grantee or contractor. The company could stave off the cutoff by proving that it was making good-faith efforts to maintain a drug-free environment. A few days after this version was approved, however, committee members learned that other House committees wished to review the proposal. Fearing that such a review could delay, perhaps indefinitely, a final vote on the measure, Walker won acceptance May 12 of a simpler version that reads: "No funds authorized to be expended under this act shall be expended in any workplace which is not free from illegal use of controlled substances." Committee staff admit that the new wording is vague, and one aide speculated that the earlier language could resurface during debate on the floor of the House. The measure is not meant to single out scientists; on April 26 Walker introduced similar legislation that would apply to all federal appropriations bills. But the six-term conservative decided that his best chance to succeed lay in first convincing colleagues on the science committee. Members of Congress and agency officials who oppose the measure are quick to note that their stance does not mean they condone the use of illegal drugs. Rather, they doubt that this approach is an effective way to combat the widespread use of drugs in society. "We’re opposed to it," says NSF’s general counsel Charles Hen about the May 5 version. "We’re strongly in favor of a drug-free environment, but we question whether this is cost-effective and how it will be enforced." Hen said that universities located in areas with high drug use, for example, might be caught up in forces that are beyond their control." Rep. Doug Walgren (D-Pa.), who helped negotiate the earlier revision of Walker’s initial amendment, says that there are still a lot of unresolved issues. "Will companies assume that they must fire any worker who’s been convicted in order to show they are maintaining a drug-free environment? And how does an agency decide whether to withhold funds? None of this is spelled out."

Bill Would Promote Drug-Free Labs

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of