Government Briefs

The current round of appropriations hearings in Congress graphically illustrates the different politicalforces that shape the NIH and NSF budgets. NSF officials, grilled by new subcommittee chairman Rep. Bob Traxler (D-Mich.),were asked to submit an analysis of where they would cut if the foundation’s proposed $262 million increase (amounting to 14%) were to be trimmed-by $50 million, $100 million, or $200 million. Traxler said that it’s highly unlikely that his panel, which also funds NASA, EPA, housing and the VA, will receive the additional $7 billion it needs to meet the administration’s proposed 1990 budget requests for those agencies, and he pressed NSF director Erich Bloch to set priorities. One week later, before veteransubcommittee chairman Rep. William Natcher (0-Ky.), NIH director James Wyngaarden was asked tc provide the panel with a description of how he would allocate $500 million more, in increments of $100 million, than the $233 million increase requested for non-AIDS, non-genome basic research. Natcher’s panel, as is its custom, encouraged NIH officials to talk about the insufficiencies of the administration’s request,which amounts to an increase of only 3.6%. Misconduct...The Saga Continues The latest chapter in the running story of how to root out and prevent scientific misconduct (see The Scientist, October 31, 1988, page 1 and November 28, 1988, page 1) is a plan from the Department of Health and Human Services to create two offices relating to scientific integrity—one at NIH and one within the office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, which oversees most federal biomedical research. The NIH office would monitor investigations by institutions into alleged misconduct by federal grantees, says NIH director James Wyngaarden, and help sort out cases of actual misconduct from instances that are really only scientific disputes. Many of those duties are now performed by the five members of the institutional liaison office within the extramural research program, but the HHS plan would expand that office and have it report directly to the NIH director. The departmental office would review cases where sanctions were warranted, Wyngaarden adds, and levy the appropriate punishment. Wyngaarden admits that the new structure, developed over the past several months, is an attempt to ward off proposed legislation from Congress,which wants the problem solved but doubts that universities can police themselves. In a bill introduced earlier this month, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (0-Calif.) were expected to propose a single office, under the Assistant Secretary of Health, to which institutions would submit regular reports on their progress in investigating allegations of misconduct. It's not inconsistent with what NIH says it’s going to do,” says one staff member for the Energy and Commerce Committee, which plans hearings next month on the legislation. “We see it as a way to get institutions to do what they should already be doing. If they don’t come through, we can always gel tougher.” A Long Road To Equal Opportunity Last month’s meeting of the National Science Board featured a provocative talk by the head of a panel created by Congress in 1980 to advise NSF on ways to increase the participation of minorities, women, and the. disabled in science. Shirley McBay, a mathematician and dean of student affairs at MIT, praised NSF for several new programs on behalf of those constituencies, including this year’s new Women in Engineering fellowship program. But she left little doubt that her group, the Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering, feels that much more needs to be done. She pointed out that only two of NSFs 108 top administrators—those who run divisions or directorates—are black or Hispanic, and that only nine are women. And she observed that the board itself, whose 24 members are appointed for six-year terms by the. president, hasn’t had a minority member on it since physicist Homer Neal completed his term in 1986. “Although you are not responsible for your selection,” she told them, “we think that a strong indication of your concern about minority representation would have a beneficial effect on the appointment process.”

Government Briefs

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of