Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘NIMH

Science Policy Around the Web – June 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Science and Politics

Politics in Science – It’s Not Just the U.S.!

Romania is a country in eastern Europe that joined the European Union (EU) in 2007. Scientists there are few and far between; research spending only accounts for 0.49% of GDP, the lowest in Europe (the US spent 2.7% in 2016). After joining the EU, Romanian researchers were encouraged to apply for European merit-based grants and sit on international review boards such as the National Research Council and the National Council of Ethics. It seemed that research was making slow but steady progress, but the new administration elected this year has shaken things up in all facets of government, including scientific research.

The new research minister, Serban Valeca, removed the international members appointed to government councils that oversee research funding, ethics, innovation and science policy, and replaced them with city council members, government-loyal union members, researchers from second tier Romanian institutes and even a surgeon being investigated for embezzlement. Grant review panels have been shuffled to remove international scientists and replace them with domestic researchers, but only if they have a certificate saying their university approves of their participation. These changes mark a departure from welcoming international input into Romanian proceedings and a movement towards scientific isolation.

To combat these changes, Romanian scientists have formed an organization, Ad Astra, which calls on researchers to boycott grant evaluations. Combined with the shuffling, the councils have been suspended for 3 months, which delays funding and puts already under-funded researchers in peril. The European University Association calls the policies deeply concerning, and although the current president may disagree with the research minister’s handling of the situation, his political ties ensure he won’t hold much sway over how this plays out. A computer scientist at the University Politehnica in Bucharest, Costin Raiciu, is concerned that the policies will affect talented researchers who have returned to Romania and says, “Without [merit-based] funding, people would either give up research altogether or move out of the country”. This is an all too familiar scenario in which it is apparent that policy and science must cooperate to produce ideal outcomes. (Alexandra Nistoroiu, ScienceInsider)

Mental Health

Clinical Trials Down, Basic Research Up at NIMH

Mental health is a notoriously tricky field. The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1950s has historically been a way to diagnose patients with mental health issues, and then give appropriate treatment. This has proved to be an imprecise treatment strategy, because within a category of diagnosis there is a broad spectrum of behaviors, and underlying this behavior there may be multiple causes. The NIH’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) seeks to characterize 1,000,000 people by behavior, genetics, environment, and physiology. Researchers from the NIMH will send questionnaires evaluating behavior to detect mood and reward responses for this group of people. When this mental health evaluation is combined with information about their genetics, lifestyle and environment, scientists can characterize mental health disorders more specifically.

Many clinician researchers are upset by the steep decline in clinical trial research funded by NIMH, which has become higher profile with director Joshua Gordon’s arrival in 2016. NIMH seeks to route funding to study mental disorders using a basic research approach before spending time and money on costly clinical trials which too often lead to inconclusive or disappointing results. In 2011 NIMH launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which encourages research proposals to include a hunt for the mechanism underlying mental health studies. Since the initial call to include a RDoC perspective in grant applications, the incidence of RDoC appearing in funded applications has increased while mention of the DSM has decreased. Other buzzwords that are present in funded grants include biomarker, circuit, target and mechanism.

These data represent a shift in how funding decisions will proceed in mental health but may have broader reaching implications for other areas of research. In a blog post Dr. Gordon writes, “the idea that RDoC will facilitate rapid, robust and reproducible neurobiological explanations for psychopathology (as observed within and across DSM disorders) represents a hypothesis”. It remains to be seen if RDoC is an effective metric to evaluate successful grants. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

How Much Neuroscience Funding is the Right Amount?

leave a comment »

By: Brian Russ, PhD

Source: pixabay

       Scientific funding can be a very tricky proposition. Unfortunately, there is a finite amount of money that is put towards science each funding cycle. This means that at any given time funding agencies need to decide where they believe their funds will be best spent. Every funding cycle, one can find different groups lamenting that their favorite topic is “being underfunded” while some other group is getting “too big a piece of the pie”. There is often no right answer to the question of how much is the right amount of funding to provide different topics, and the likelihood is that at the end of the day every group will feel that they are not getting the right amount of respect and funding.

This debate has come to the forefront recently in the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience with a change in the leadership at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In September, Dr. Joshua Gordon became the new director of the NIMH. Dr. Gordon’s directorship of the NIMH comes after a 13-year period of leadership by Dr. Tom Insel. During the previous administration, there had been an increasing focus on funding neuroscience related work, often at the expense of purely behavioral work, such as cognitive behavioral therapies for psychiatry patients. It is important to point out that the NIMH’s definition of neuroscience research includes basic, translational, and clinical neuroscience research. This direction led to a new research framework for studying mental health disorders termed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which has a very strong neuroscience component. The goal of RDoC is to provide a new framework in which researchers and clinicians can study and treat mental health disorders. The RDoC framework involves neuroscience components of brain circuits and physiology, and cognitive components of behavior and self-reports. The end goal is to provide a more comprehensive description of mental health disorders with the intention of developing cures and treatments. This push toward RDoC, and more neuroscience in general, has led to both praise and criticism of where the NIMH is directing its funding opportunities.

Recently, an opinion piece was published in the New York Times stating that the NIMH needs to reverse their push towards more neuroscience. Specifically, Dr. Markowitz, a research psychiatrist from Columbia University, believes that the NIMH has been funding neuroscience at the expense of clinical psychological research, in the absence of a brain oriented component. His argument is that in the current funding environment only 10% of the NIMH’s research budget is going towards clinical research. From the content of his article the research he is speaking of involves behavioral studies and interventions that contain no neuroscience component. Dr. Markowitz brings up many important points, and his main thesis that we cannot forget about behavioral interventions while pursuing the biological bases of clinical disorders is critical. For example, he makes the strong point that neuroscience research is unlikely to help solve the problem of suicide. And his final argument is for a “more balanced approach to funding clinical and neuroscience research.”

However, one can argue what that balance should actually look like. Is ten percent of the budget actually a small amount? And does that number include the multitude of basic neuroscience studies that are investigating the neural underpinning of a given disease? For example, based on the NIH reporter, schizophrenia research has been funded for approximately 250 million dollars for each of the last three years. A quick look at the total budget (32.3 billion in 2016, with ~25 billion going to research grants) suggests that that would be on the order of about 1% of the total NIH research budget. This is only one disease, and is being calculated from the whole NIH budget, not just from the NIMH budget. Only a portion of that funding is going towards clinical research, as Dr. Markowitz would define it, however the rest of that funding is going to research that will in all likelihood provide clinical benefits to patients down the road, in the form of new physiological targets or potentially new drugs.

So how can one make a determination about the correct of amount of funding that should go towards different mental health fields? Should 25% or 50% of the budget go towards clinical research? It seems that comparing the percent of money going to clinical research versus neuroscience is simply a bad comparison. Neuroscience is not one homogenous topic; it includes tens of, if not over a hundred, different fields. The various mental health fields fighting each other over funding doesn’t help anyone. Both neuroscience and clinical research need to be funded. It seems that the best way to divide the funding from NIMH would not be to specify what field gets priority but instead to fund the best grants regardless of whether there is a specific component involved. This would open the door to more clinical research while not requiring a shift in the priorities of the NIMH, whose mission is to understand and treat mental illnesses though both basic and clinical research. For instance, RDoC already contains both behavioral and self-report components. These components should be given as much priority as the other neuroscience components. If 10% of the budget is given to behavioral work, in this way, that would seem reasonable, possibly even greater than other areas might be getting.

On a final note, while we should always be looking internally at how we are funding different types of science, and if we, the public, are getting our money’s worth out of projects, it is also important for us to ensure that science funding as a whole is increasing. The current funding environment has been relatively static for years. We need, through advocacy and outreach, to get the public and government to provide more funding opportunities to the NIH. As the saying goes “a rising tide raises all boats”.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm