Advocacy in Advocacy in Science: Science:

Opportunities, Opportunities, Limits, Limits,

Responsibilities and Responsibilities and RisksRisks

FASEB: A Public Policy Voice for Biological and Biomedical Researchers

Howard Garrison

February 11, 2008

Advocacy Is A Core Part of Our Mission Pre-1989

Six member societies Centralized organization Major scientific meeting

Post-1989 Public affairs emphasis New governance Rapid growth

What We Do Policy development Government liaison and advocacy Policy research Communications Coalition building Public outreach

How We Operate Emphasis on working scientists Consensus-based Empirically-supported Outcome-oriented

Policy Development Mechanisms Consensus Conferences

Subject matter experts Face-to-face interaction

Science Policy Committee Organized into issue-based subcommittees Staffed by professionals

Ultimate Oversight by FASEB Board

Breakthroughs in Bioscience

Animals in Research & Education

Stem Cells/SCNT

Clinical Research

Educating about

Evolution

Peer Review

NSABB (Biosecurity)

Enhanced Public Access

NIH Issues

Training & Career

Opportunities

Standing Subcommittees

Ad Hoc Subcommittees

FASEB’s Policy Think Tank: Science Policy Committee

SCIENCE POLICY SCIENCE POLICY COMMITTEECOMMITTEE

FASEB Member Societies

Science PolicyCommittee

ConsensusConference

Board of Directors

FASEB PolicyFASEB Policy

Public AffairsCommittee

From Good Idea to Good Policy:Policy Development Process

Strengths and Limitations of Consensus Based Approach to Policy Advantages

Informed by many perspectives Strong basis for building larger coalitions

Limitations Deliberations take time Tension between local and global issues Actions are limited to those on which there is a

broad consensus Undercuts ability to negotiate

Core Public Policy Issues Federal funding for research Protect the environment for research

Create the next generation of scientists Fight regulatory burden

Animal research Stem cell research Research misconduct Conflict of interest Biosecurity

Challenge political interference in Peer review Science education

Major Successes Five year doubling of NIH budget Increased funding for USDA, NSF and other

research agencies Prevented Animal Welfare Act inclusion of

rats, mice and birds NIH ethics policies Defended peer review at VA and other

agencies Kept biosecurity funding at NIH

Recent Accomplishments NIH Reauthorization Communications

Grass roots advocacy for NIH Educating about evolution Training slides

Conflict of interest initiative Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Stem cell legislation passed House and

Senate

Office of Public Affairs Federal funding Animals in research Training / careers Research integrity Stem cells / SCNT Publication Homeland security Regulatory burden

Conflicts of interest Technology transfer Politicization of

science Peer review Indirect costs Genetic

nondiscrimination Agency

reauthorization

Risks of Activism Mission creep

Demands on time of volunteers Cost associated with advocacy Expanding number of issues

Competing priorities Altered public image

Organization Profession

Current Legislative Priorities Hold meetings/ issue letters

Reauthorization Appropriations

Coordinate freshman briefing Build Congressional database Work with patient groups More visible “thank you” and

“spank you” actions

Communications Initiatives Washington Update Breakthroughs in Bioscience State Advocacy PowerPoints E-action alerts

Subscribers Mass alerts

Voter Engagement Campaign

Science Policy Priorities Training & Workforce Animal Research Biosecurity Conflict of Interest Clinical Research Stem Cells Evolution Education