Advocacy in Science: Opportunities, Limits, Responsibilities and Risks 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 COMMITTEE

FASEB Member Societies Science Policy Committee Consensus Conference Board of Directors FASEB Policy Public Affairs Committee 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