Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
APPENDIX D 55 I am pleased to be able to testify on research training in the behavioral sciences and the National Research Service Awards program (NRSA). Think New, but Inexpensive Thoughts I expect the Committee has already reviewed psychologyâs recommendations from past iterations of this study. Although the American Psychological Society was not in existence then, I was involved in those debates and often wrote the testimony from organized psychology. But I want to caution you against simply resurrecting these past arguments in your current assessment. Times have changed significantly in these last years, both in psychology and in the federal research enterprise generally. A more appropriate strategy for psychology, at least, (and, I would argue, for the Committee) is to throw out all past assumptions and to start fresh in looking at where research training money for psychology and behavioral science can be best spent. For instance, the past controversy over whether postdoctoral training is where significant new money should be spent now seems far removed. Postdoctoral training is more and more the rule in training, and no longer separates, say, the physiological psychologist from the social or developmental psychologist. Instead of these micro discussions, we should be talking about new ideas and mechanisms that could fundamentally influence the direction of the field. One service I think this Committee could provide in these changing times is to be more of a constant monitor of trends in research training, rather than taking the once-every-four-years look that is the case now. Perhaps some small yearly oversight by the Committee can be maintained. But with all this talk of change, there is one overriding assumption that should underlie all that you consider: there will be little, if any, new money for research or for new researchers for the next several years. Now, and for the foreseeable future, we can expect steady-state funding at best, and more likely, real decreases. I know that we have all heard this same âhard timesâ argument about funding for the last 10 years or more. But at the end of each of the past 10 fiscal years, NIH and ADAMHA did just fine in their research budgets, particularly compared to other domestic spending. No more. The Readiness of Behavioral Science The sad irony in this lack of funding is that it is coming as behavioral science has made major strides both substantively and in its ability to convince federal and Congressional bodies of its importance in addressing national priorities. APS itself is one bit of evidence. As an organization solely representing the science of psychology, we have grown literally from zero to a membership of 15,000 in just four years. And during this same period, the National Science Foundation became convinced that behavioral and related sciences had grown enough to warrant their own administrative structure at the agency; the National Institutes of Health has significantly increased its commitment to behavioral research (and the current NIH reauthorization bill now pending in Congress includes the creation of an NIH-wide Office of Behavioral Research); the National Institute of Mental Health is undertaking an assessment of its behavioral science portfolio that should result in a national plan that in richer days would have increased behavioral research funding in much the same way other NIMH reports have increased the Instituteâs programs in schizophrenia and neuroscience; and Congress has asked several additional agencies to look toward a behavioral science multiorganizational effort aimed at creating a national behavioral science research agenda, called The Human Capital Initiative, in planning their own behavioral research priorities. The behavioral sciences have never been more ready to receive the infusion of researchers that NRSA support could bring. In the more biomedical world of NIH, this point often has to be made again and again. The behavioral sciences as well as the biomedical sciences are core NIH disciplines and deserve their fair share of support. âNo Frillsâ Research Training Needs Emphasis But the money will not be there. If significant increases are forthcoming, they will likely be tied to science policy areas with major public impact both in terms of public health (like AIDS) and jobs (like the Space Station or the Superconducting Supercollider). It will be up to the leadership of bodies like yours to see
