Earlier this year, NIH invited the public to comment on which
scientific opportunities and public health needs should be included as part of
the strategic plan for the new substance use disorders research Institute. A Request for Information (RFI) was
issued inviting suggestions for priority areas of focus for the new
Institute. The RFI specifically requested
feedback on a preliminary list of 13 scientific research opportunities and insufficiently
addressed public health needs. The
preliminary list was developed by the strategic planning committee charged with
drafting a plan for the new Institute, and can be found here.
In June, NIH posted comments received in response to the RFI
here.
NIH contracted Ripple Effect Communications, Inc., to review
and provide an independent analysis of responses.
Five hundred responses were received during the 3-month
comment period, 470 of which were considered unique and responsive to the RFI. Most of the responses (80%) were
submitted by individuals with the balance submitted on behalf of institutions. Over a thousand different comments were
extracted as part of the analysis.
More than half (52%) related to research topics considered priorities,
with most comments related to alcohol research and development/progression of
addiction disorders research. The
analysis resulted in a 35-page report and 4 appendices, which can be downloaded in PDF form
here.
Respondents generally endorsed the preliminary 13-item list
presented for comment, and specifically endorsed several items for inclusion in
the focus of the new Institute, including:
·
Tobacco use and co-morbidity
·
Designing clinical trials that accurately reflect
real-world conditions
·
Understanding the implications of policy research on
substance use patterns and trajectories, especially in youth.
·
Enhancing stakeholder interest in developing medications
to treat various addictions, including nicotine and alcohol.
Several common themes emerged including:
·
Suggestions that funding allocations should match
public health burdens of disease
·
A better balance should be struck in terms of support
for biological/biomedical and behavioral/psychosocial approaches
·
Concern that alcohol-related research, if moved to
disease-specific Institutes, would be considered lower priorities and receive
reduced funding.
With regard to that last point, one comment conveyed an
impression that alcohol-related research, when reviewed by certain NIH study
sections, was considered lower priority research (report
page 13; full comment ID #118).
This concern could extend to research on other substance use disorders
and is something that the strategic planning committee will have to consider as
they draft the new Institute’s strategic and portfolio integration plans. The draft plan is anticipated to be
released later this year for additional public comment.
The process to form the new Institute seems poised to move
forward but with Sequestration looming, will it?
The release of the analysis signals what could become a
more active period of the process, at least in terms of public awareness,
toward defining, budgeting, and implementing the new substance use disorders
Institute.
However, the process could be further delayed or otherwise
altered if significant budgetary cuts to NIH occur in January 2013 as a
consequence of Sequestration, the process of automatic budget cuts resulting if
Congress fails to establish an alternative budget plan by then.
One set of estimates provided by Research!America suggests
that Sequestration would induce an automatic 7.8% cut ($2.39 billion) of the
current NIH budget (PDF). This
amount is equivalent to about half of the FY11 budget for the National Cancer
Institute, the largest NIH Institute, or almost double the amount NIH provided
as part of Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology
Transfer Research (SBIR and STTR) programs. In terms of the 2012 budget, a 7.8% cut is slightly less
than the 8.2% budget allocation by NIH for “Other Research, Superfund, Office
of the Director”, or the cumulative 7.7% allocation for Research Management and
Support, Research Training, and Facilities Construction” (PDF).
Either way, the next few months should be very intriguing
for those interested in NIH and in the formation of the new substance use
disorders Institute.
CPDDBLOG welcomes CPDD member’s thoughts on these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your full name and the current CPDD password above your comment to have your comment reviewed for posting by the moderator. If you do not provide your full name and the current CPDD member password for authentication, your comment will not be reviewed.