Congressional "Oversight"

In an attempt to safeguard the public interest, Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) introduced an amendment to a spending bill, that passed in the House, that prevents NIH from funding two specific grants. What is the research that Neugebauer finds so unworthy, something about sex? Suprisingly, no. One concerns the role of self-esteem in marriage and the other, perception and cognition in pigeons.

Continue Reading

From Neugebauer's website:

One of the studies has been ongoing for nearly 15 years and has received more than $1.5 million to study “Perceptual Bases of Visual Concepts.” This study examines how pigeons can classify lifelike visual stimuli into natural and artificial categories.

Now on its fifth year, a second study has spent more than $745,000 to determine how the self-esteem of newlyweds affects their marriage. According to the NIMH, this study examines how “the activation of felt security affects newlyweds’ capacity to engage in behavioral regulation strategies critical for marital satisfaction.”

“I am a fan of marriage,” Neugebauer said. “In fact, I have actively participated in one for 35 years. However, despite any scientific merits this research may have, it fails to contribute to the effort to find cures for Alzheimer’s, autism, or any other serious mental health disease.”

Neugebauer is also concerned that these two grants are being supported at the expense of more important research.

“Sending millions of dollars to research that falls outside the mission of NIMH is problematic enough,” Neugebauer said. “However, this problem is compounded when you look at the list of grants that have been rejected over the same time period. If you look at the list, you will find grant after grant which specifically targets serious mental health diseases, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.”

It isn't clear why he zeroed in on these two grants. It also is not clear why he has made it his business to decide which grants should be funded and which should not. NIH grants are generally not easy to get--in fact the median age for a researcher to obtain their first competetive NIH grant is 42. NIH grants go through a tough peer review process--one that is not just a rubber stamp, since most grant applications are rejected.

From the Coalition to Protect Research:

NIH is the premier biomedical and behavioral research institution in the world. Its mission is to support science to improve the health and well-being of all humanity. At a time when genetic control over diseases is tantalizingly close but not yet possible, knowledge of the behavioral influences on health is a crucial component in the nation’s battles against the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Appropriately, NIH supports a large and robust portfolio of research on all aspects of human development and disease.

Contrary to the assertion that NIMH’s mission should focus solely on severe mental illnesses, and away from promoting mental health, the Public Health Service Act (Report 102-546) provides a clear picture of congressional intent regarding NIMH’s mission: “The research program established under this subpart shall include support for biomedical and behavioral neuroscience and shall be designed to further the treatment and prevention of mental illness, the promotion of mental health, and the study of psychological, social, and legal factors that influence behavior…”

It is certainly Congress's perogative to determine funding and set priorities, but for one Congressman to decide that a couple of grants should not be funded because he/she thinks it is wasteful is bad practice and policy, in my opinion.