APS Comments on Framework for NIH Reform

Nearly all agencies and programs of the United States federal government require periodic reauthorization by Congress. The National Institutes of Health is one such federal agency. Congressional authorization provides Congress with the opportunity to review and evaluate priorities and programs, and to assess and authorize funding levels. The last comprehensive NIH reauthorization was done in 2006.  

The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are both now working on legislative proposals that would reauthorize the NIH.  

Recently, the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives—a committee with jurisdiction over the NIH—released a draft framework document that outlines some recommendations about how the Committee would make changes to NIH. The Committee also requested stakeholder feedback. On August 15, 2024, the Association for Psychological Science shared some initial reactions and suggestions with the Committee (See below).

The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers 
Chairwoman, Energy and Commerce Committee 
U.S. House of Representatives


Dear Chairwoman Rodgers, 

On behalf of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), thank you and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for your efforts to reauthorize the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and for sharing the Committee’s Framework for Reforming the National Institutes of Health. The Framework document includes intriguing recommendations worthy of careful consideration. We hope that the Committee will continue to engage the scientific community in discussions and hearings. APS is keenly interested in NIH reauthorization and welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the process as it moves forward.  

APS is the premier global psychological science professional organization with a membership that includes psychological scientists who work in research, education, clinical practice, and other applied settings. Our members include behavioral, clinical, cognitive, developmental, health, industrial and organizational, linguistic, neuroscience, personality, and social psychological scientists. APS members receive grant and contract funding from the various NIH Institutes and Centers for their research and participate in NIH supported education and training programs at universities, medical schools, and other non-profit research centers.  

The NIH supports important research and training that improves our understanding of fundamental psychological science and human behavior. The insights gained from this work contribute greatly to improved health and quality of life for individuals in the United States as well as around the world. It is vital that the NIH receive the resources and tools required to meet its mission in the years ahead. Congressional oversight of NIH is important, but we caution against adding new levels of bureaucracy or establishing pathways that can create opportunities for political interference with scientific decision-making, the merit/peer-review process, and priority setting. United States science agencies, such as the NIH, have been successful because they have historically been free to follow the science. 

When some people think of psychological science at NIH, they may rightfully recognize its importance to the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, or the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. What many often overlook is that psychological and behavioral science is important to our understanding and treatment of nearly all health conditions. For example, understanding human resilience, how individuals perceive risk, adopt healthier behaviors, and process complex information about a cancer diagnosis is centrally important to improving prevention, treatment, and outcomes. The same is true for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or any other medical condition.  

Understanding the human mind and behavior through rigorous psychological research, including comparative animal behavior models, is required if we are to successfully solve significant problems and improve human wellbeing. Measures are already in place to govern the use of animals in research. Further regulation is not required and should not be included in the reauthorization.  

Our science must be found across the NIH. In addition to conducting research, psychological scientists can provide insights that facilitate more productive cross-disciplinary research teams, tools that enhance training, and strategies that support organizational culture change.    

As the Framework notes, transparency is one important way to build and maintain public trust in the NIH. Transparency is also important for the reauthorization effort. The scientific community can more productively engage in and constructively contribute to the reauthorization discussion if there were more information and clarity about what led to the recommendations in the Framework, and what data support or counsel against the implementation of these recommendations. For example: How much, if any, funding would be saved by eliminating administrative redundancies associated with reducing the number of Institutes? Would these savings be invested in research and training? What will be done to promote culture change and foster the integration of programs and scientists who are moved into new organizational units? What guardrails will be put in place to ensure a new organizational structure does not eliminate or undervalue smaller research fields? Will principles and insights from industrial and organizational psychology be used throughout NIH to ensure an outcome-focused strategy? 

The Framework recommendation to reorganize and reduce the number of NIH Institutes might promote more strategic initiatives and de-siloing, if implemented appropriately. If units are merely shifted around, it seems unlikely that the desired goals will be realized. Without proper planning and clearly stated goals, many in the scientific community worry that important research programs will be marginalized or lost in the shuffle. Additionally, the proposal to convert the National Institute on Aging into the National Institute on Dementia raises concerns given that not all aging research is dementia research. Important work related to human aging could be lost. Assuming that non-dementia aging research would be shifted to other Institutes as part of the goal of enhancing life stage research, how will Congress and NIH ensure this work is fully integrated and appropriately supported in all Institutes and Centers? More generally, how will Congress ensure that psychological and behavioral science research is part of the life stage research approach that would be common across NIH?   

Promoting research security is important, but these policies must not stifle important global collaborations. Scientific advances require appropriate sharing of data, tools, and methods, as well as the ability of scientists to travel to scientific conferences and for collaborative work with colleagues. We encourage Congress to consider how NIH can further expand its current role in supporting global collaborations to better support scientific teams that include members from multiple nations, particularly the global south. More mechanisms for multinational collaboration can spur scientific advances by engaging experts from around the world in coordinated research and training. New funding mechanisms and increased investment in global collaborations can help build needed scientific and public health capacity around the world, which provides important scientific, diplomatic, and public health benefits to the United States. 

The recommendation to limit Institute directors to a five-year term with the option of a one-term renewal should be included in the NIH reauthorization. This is an important change that will help to ensure new ideas, whether scientific or management, are infused into NIH.  

Thank you for the opportunity to share initial thoughts, questions, and reactions to the Committee’s Framework. Please do not hesitate to contact me if APS can provide additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Gropp, Ph.D. 
Chief Executive Officer