U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–007 PDF 2008

WILL NIEHS’ NEW PRIORITIES PROTECT PUBLIC

HEALTH?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

Serial No. 110–70

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DIANE E. WATSON, California

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 25, 2007 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Lucier, George W., former editor in chief of EHP, former associate director of NTP; Lynn R. Goldman, professor, Johns Hopkins University,

Bloomberg School of Public Health; Peggy M. Shepard, executive director, We Act for Environmental Justice; and Stefani D. Hines, member,

National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council [NAEHSC],

environmental specialist, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico ......... 53

Goldman, Lynn R. ..................................................................................... 62

Hines, Stefani D. ....................................................................................... 79

Lucier, George W. ...................................................................................... 53

Shepard, Peggy M. .................................................................................... 71

Wilson, Samuel, Acting Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program ................ 21

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Goldman, Lynn R., professor, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg

School of Public Health, prepared statement of ......................................... 65

Hines, Stefani D., member, National Advisory Environmental Health

Sciences Council [NAEHSC], environmental specialist, Albuquerque,

University of New Mexico, prepared statement of ..................................... 81

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Letter dated November 19, 2007 ..................................................................... 38

Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 4

Lucier, George W., former editor in chief of EHP, former associate director of NTP, prepared statement of .............................................................. 56

Shepard, Peggy M., executive director, We Act for Environmental Justice,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 74

Wilson, Samuel, Acting Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 24

(1)

WILL NIEHS’ NEW PRIORITIES PROTECT

PUBLIC HEALTH?

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Tierney, Watson, and Issa.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Jean Gosa, clerk;

Vic Edgerton, senior legislative assistant, Office of Mr. Kucinich;

Natalie Laber, press secretary, Office of Mr. Kucinich; Leneal Scott,

information systems manager; Alex Cooper, minority professional

staff member; and Larry Brady, minority senior investigator and

policy advisor.

Mr. KUCINICH. Good afternoon. The committee will come to

order.

The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will now come to order. Today’s

hearing will examine the National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences and whether or not it protects public health.

Without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority member

will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

arrives and seeks recognition.

Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for

the record.

I want to bid a good afternoon to our ranking member, Mr. Issa.

I appreciate your presence here today and to our witnesses attending and the audience.

Soon after becoming the Director of NIEHS on April 4, 2005, Dr.

David Schwartz set in motion a new set of research priorities for

NIEHS, which he articulated throughout his tenure in forums like

his Director’s Perspective Columns in EHP, as well as the NIEHS

2006 to 2011 Strategic Plan.

A primary goal was to shift significant resources toward research

that was clinical in nature and which focused on discoveries that

would contribute to treating or curing disease once a patient was

already afflicted. There was also an effort to shift resources away

from projects or programs that represented anything other than

scientific research.

2

The new plan was fairly well received in the scientific community. Legitimate environmental health research needs would be

filled and innovative approaches would be embraced.

Dr. Schwartz’s own research was highly respected. His reputation as a top-notch scientist was translated into a strong research

agenda which few would argue with, unless the consequences of

implementing it were too great, unless the tradeoff was too costly.

That is exactly the problem we are faced with today. NIEHS does

not have unlimited resources, and Dr. Schwartz’s new direction

forced cuts in the traditional mission and role of NIEHS in researching and protecting public health.

It should be noted that Dr. Schwartz is not a witness today. Dr.

Schwartz departed from NIEH when it became known that an internal investigation was under way into significant charges against

him for misconduct, conflict of interest, waste and mismanagement.

This committee had opened an investigation into Dr. Schwartz’s

management practices months earlier, and several other congressional investigations were also in their beginning stages.

Dr. Schwartz is officially on temporary leave, although I don’t

know if anyone seriously believes he will return as Director. The

hearing today does not concern any alleged misconduct, and I want

to use the word ‘‘alleged’’ misconduct, however important I believe

it is to go into that. However, it will explore the programmatic direction and policy choices Dr. Schwartz made as Director and try

to ascertain whether NIEHS’ new management intends to sustain

them in Dr. Schwartz’s absence.

The first question we will explore today is, at what cost has come

Dr. Schwartz’s new direction for the NIEHS? What are we losing

by shifting resources toward new endeavors and in doing so targeting for reductions in other areas? Let me be clear that this is not

just a funding question. Several management decisions have also

reflected a devaluing of these key areas to restructuring and weakening leadership of certain initiatives.

The second question is this: Should the new NIEHS research direction and priorities, as set out by Dr. Schwartz, continue?

This subcommittee has performed its own analysis of the NIEHS’

new research direction and priorities based on information provided by the NIH at our request and from information provided by

informants and verified by staff. We have some documents up on

the screen that will reflect that.

We found the impact on public health to be significant, with tangible effects on people’s health. As suspected, there were funding

cuts to preventive research, to outreach and education and to longterm research. There was also a neglect to fill leadership positions

or programs representing those interests like in EHP and NTP.

There were efforts to change the direction of children’s research by

stacking a review panel. At the same time, there were several new

initiatives, mostly clinical in nature, that were expensive by comparison.

Today, we will hear from witnesses about the programs like community involvement, environmental justice, long-term research,

children’s health and information dissemination and education that

have suffered. These are exactly the kinds of areas that are fundamental to public health.

3

If we are to make the research translate into preventing disease,

instead of trying to treat or cure it after it has already struck, we

will need to involve the communities that are affected using proven

techniques like community-based participatory research. We will

need to make deliberate efforts to get the information out there,

using world-class peer review journals like Environmental Health

Perspectives.

We will need to focus on populations that are most affected by

chemicals and other hazards in our environment, like children and

communities of color; and we will need to prioritize environmental

hazards for regulatory action with programs like the National Toxicology Program.

With relatively meager funding, NIEHS is viewed as one of the

most credible sources in the world of impartial information about

health hazards in our environment. NIEHS’ work in the public interest is critical at a time when some malfeasant actors in the

chemical industry or plastics industry have the funding to turn out

their own pseudo-science, following in the footsteps of the tobacco

industry. EHP alone is a pillar of truth. Consider the study released in January of this year showing that of all the studies looking for a possible relationship between mobile phone use and any

health problem, those funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry were far less likely to find a link. You may also

know the National Toxicology Program is a target for those trying

to use procedural monkey wrenches to slow the listing of certain

chemicals as a cause of cancer or birth defects, which had been

made plain in an August report by OMB Watch.

Another reason for the importance of NIEHS and its mission to

prevent disease from occurring is that prevention is often far more

cost-effective than treatment or cure. The reason is a significant

failing of the market system: There is a little profit in prevention

when compared to treatment. There is no race for the prevention

of breast cancer, only for the cure. There are no public health professionals roaming hospital corridors pitching the latest techniques

to reduce exposure to polybrominated diphenylethers [PBDEs], a

flame-retardant chemical, to expectant mothers, in the same way

there are drug industry reps selling the latest patent drug.

Yet the reach of the NIEHS, given this financial disadvantage,

is extraordinary. EHP is the No. 1 journal in its field and adjacent

fields. Its Report on Carcinogens, the gold standard of chemicals

that cause birth defects and cancer, is relied upon by State, Federal

and international agencies whose mission is to help prevent exposure to toxic chemicals.

We must keep in mind that the NIEHS is a world-renowned

agency which built its reputation on the excellent preventive and

public health work it does. While the agency has not abandoned

that authority, it has made significant first steps in that direction.

I want to thank the witnesses who have taken time out of their

busy schedules and important work they do in protecting public

health to explore this topic. I will note that each of them works

with many others who also contribute every day to this noble

cause. I thank each of them for their work as well.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. KUCINICH. At this time, the Chair will recognize the ranking

member, distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for many of

your opening remarks.

As the witnesses, I am sure, are aware, here on Capitol Hill

often you see a chairman and a ranking member as two bookends

in their opening statements. Not so here today. Although the chairman and I may disagree on some issues related to other subjects,

when it comes to the basic oversight and reform obligations of this

committee and this hearing today, no two people could be closer together.

The fact is that Congress relies heavily on NIEHS’ ability to do

its fundamental job; and a direction change, although well-intended, appears to have done two things: reduced its ability to do

core missions, which as of yet Congress has not seen fit, nor have

other Federal agencies, to buy in wholesale for those to be abandoned. Second, when a reorganization occurs in any organization

and it causes significant internal disruptions, by definition we in

Congress feel that we need to ask questions about effectiveness,

about whether or not those disruptions are because a new leader

is challenging an entrenched bureaucracy, looking for inefficiencies,

looking for opportunities to do government’s job better, or, in fact,

simply trying to make a name for themselves in a community in

which reputation has often to do with the number of people supervised and number of reorganizations done.

Today I look forward to this hearing because I believe both in our

role as oversight, finding out why there is so much turmoil, and reform, finding out whether or not there are legitimate areas in

which new technologies would allow for an effective use of basic

clinical science, rather than the traditional roles that have been enjoyed and, if so, what they are and, if so, how should we best fund

them.

The chairman and I have worked together on a number of issues.

This one probably more than any is one in which we must work

out an effective message after this hearing and perhaps follow-on

hearings to ensure that this organization right-sizes itself and finds

itself on a path toward working to at least accomplish its traditional goals and, if money and efficiencies can be found, to find additional.

I do have just two small points of dissension, and they are limited. Maybe it’s in agreement.

The chairman commented that the Director was not here today.

Since the Director, Director Schwartz, is, in fact, only on a temporary leave of absence, I would hope that if there is a followup

hearing that we insist that somebody who has stepped down temporarily and is still at least partially covered by Federal benefits

would be available here today.

That’s certainly not to limit your presence or importance, Dr.

Wilson.

Second, perhaps to chastise just a little publicly that these opening statements and witness testimony are valuable. I really had

wished that we had had at least the minimum 24 hours that the

committee requires in order to get those statements analyzed by

staff. We will try to do the best we can, having gone through them

19

just today. If we ask questions that are not fully fact checked or

appear to perhaps be asking questions that seem beneath congressional standard, it’s because we only received them well after close

of business last night.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for holding this hearing.

Once again, I believe we have found a good bipartisan issue to

work on.

I yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from California

and associate myself with the concerns that you expressed about

the necessity of the subcommittee being able to do its work and

have staff evaluate these statements that come in. We will do the

best we can with the information that you provided us.

At this point, I would like to recognize the representative from

Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for the purpose of an opening statement.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really have no opening statement to add here. I really came to

listen and learn.

I want to thank you and the ranking member for picking this

particular subject. I think it has importance to all of us. I am anxious to hear what the witnesses have to present.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Does the gentlelady from California have any opening statements

at all.

Ms. WATSON. I do, if you will give me a second.

Mr. KUCINICH. Sure, just take your time.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual, you

are right on time on holding this important hearing with protecting

public health.

When I was a State Senator in California, I served as the Chair

of Health and Human Services for 17 years, so public health is an

issue that is near and dear to my heart.

There are several issues that arise when we discuss the direction

of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The

first issue that stands at the forefront is the cuts to the Children’s

Environmental Health Centers.

In my district, in Los Angeles and Hollywood, there is a joint

USC and UCLA Children’s Environmental Health Center. Since

1998, this children’s center has been investigating the effects of the

environment on children’s respiratory health.

The center’s projects have yielded important information about

the effects of air pollution on children. For example, CEHC has reported there has been substantial progress in understanding the effects of ambient air pollutants and environmental tobacco smoke on

children’s respiratory health, and researchers have identified characteristics that increase the susceptibility of children. This contributes to a growing consensus that current levels of combustion-related air pollutants are more detrimental to children’s airways than

previously thought.

With significant progress and research on the effects of the environment on children, I am somewhat disturbed to find out that the

funding for children’s centers has been cut by nearly $900,000.

20

The other issue that I have with NIEHS is the change of focus

from research that was preventive in nature to a more clinical

base.

I believe that when we talk about Homeland Security we are

talking about protecting the children and the people on the land

and not just the infrastructure. Finding preventive measures to

catastrophic illnesses should continue to be the main focus of

NIEHS and not entirely devoted to treatment and incurring preventable conditions.

My last concern is Dr. David Schwartz, the former Director of

NIEHS, who is not here to answer questions about alleged mismanagement and corruption. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can

call on Dr. Schwartz to appear before this committee to answer the

questions about these allegations at a subsequent hearing. I know

you will see that he is made available.

Thank you so much. I yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady. I want the gentlelady to

know that the ranking member, Mr. Issa, voiced the same concerns

that you did. So this committee is united in its intentions.

Ms. WATSON. See, he is a Californian.

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to thank both Members for focusing

on that.

At this time, I would like to introduce our panelist.

Dr. Samuel Wilson is the Acting Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Wilson joined the

NIEHS in his present capacity in 1996. He has fostered basic medical research and disease prevention research during his tenure. He

was instrumental in helping develop the NIEHS’ programs in genetic susceptibility, functional gnomics, children’s health research

and minority institutions research and community outreach.

Dr. Wilson has also strengthened partnerships between the

NIEHS and other Federal agencies concerned with environmental

health. He received his training in medicine and biochemistry at

Harvard Medical School and began his research at the NIH in

1970.

In 1991, he moved to the extramural community to found a center focused in the areas of genetic toxicology and structural biology.

An active researcher, Dr. Wilson is the principal investigator of the

DNA Repair and Nucleic Acid Enzymology Group in the Laboratory

of Structural Biology at the NIEHS. He has authored more than

300 research articles.

Doctor, it is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I

would ask that you please rise and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that the witness answered

in the affirmative.

I ask the Doctor to give a brief summary of his testimony and

to keep this summary, if you can, under 5 minutes in duration. I

want you to know, Doctor, that your complete statement will be included in the hearing record.

The Chair recognizes Dr. Wilson.

21

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL WILSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

SCIENCES AND THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. My name is Sam Wilson. At the chairman said,

I am the Acting Director of the National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. I have long

served the interests of the environmental health sciences as a researcher, as director of a center in the extramural community and

as the Deputy Director of the NIEHS and National Toxicology Program since 1996.

Dr. Zerhouni asked me to represent NIH today and respond to

your questions because Congress has mandated that each Institute

and Center comprising the NIH receive direct appropriations, make

independent decisions on use of resources, conduct independent

strategic planning, and work with its own National Advisory Council. In other words, in terms of allocation of research resources of

NIEHS, the buck literally stops here at my desk.

Mr. Chairman, you have expressed concerns that NIEHS is shifting research away from prevention toward clinical approaches to

research. I want to state categorically that prevention is a priority

of my own and, indeed, all of the NIH. Prevention is a cornerstone

of NIH’s research strategy. All institutes and centers, especially

NIEHS, support medical research that prevents the problem, rather than research that merely addresses acute symptoms or endstage disease.

Now, the mission of the NIEHS is to support research to define

the role of environmental agents in the initiation and progression

of human disease. The goal is to use knowledge from this research

to reduce adverse exposures and, thus, reduce preventable diseases

and conditions. Our understanding of how the environment operates at the molecular level can also provide insights on interventions and early markers for disease. Thus, the NIEHS research is

targeted to the ‘‘front end’’ of disease, or disease etiology, and prevention.

The final impact of our research effort, the reduction of human

disease and suffering, relies on the efforts of many, including scientists from a variety of scientific disciplines, community groups,

policymakers, both within Congress and the administration, along

with regulatory agencies throughout the world.

The chart that you see on the screen illustrates this broad spectrum of research translation from fundamental findings in molecular toxicology over here on the left-hand side all the way to the

right-hand side of disease, impact, prevention and economic benefit.

Now, all of the components in the continuum that you see here

in this rainbow, if you will, are necessary to the efficient transfer

of knowledge from fundamental research in molecular toxicology to

disease impact, prevention and economic benefit. Our success is

highly dependent on public education, as you can see in one sector

of the chart here, and also the involvement of community groups.

In the last section of the chart, you can see the importance of formulation of public policy toward the direct application of our research findings.

22

Also on the chart you see the national toxicology program listed

here. This program is one of the crown jewels of the Institute and

works on hazard assessment research conducted within the mission

of the medical toxicology program.

Every disease has an environmental component. Thus, NIEHS’s

responsibilities span all human disease, rather than following the

model of focus on a specific disease or organ system. This broad

spectrum presents challenges, since the public health message of

NIEHS must be broad.

Yet the fact is that environmental problems are often local or regional and often complex and often involve involuntary exposures.

Such problems engender very passionate responses, both from local

communities and the private sector. This multiplicity of stakeholders, as well as the competing economic risks and benefits of our

findings, presents NIH with challenging pressures. We have addressed these competing demands by ensuring that stakeholders

are included in critical decisions, by providing exhaustive peer review and opportunity for public comment, and by developing innovative approaches by which our research can be relevant to local

conditions and needs.

A particular source of pride for me are the novel ways in which

NIEHS has sought to recruit the insights of local communities in

their research and in the dissemination of research findings. This

early inclusion of community groups, in addition to academic medical researchers, has been a particular strength of the NIEHS.

When I joined the NIEHS in 1996, we began to move the Institute’s research toward a sharper focus on disease prevention, as

well as investigating new ways in which local communities could

be more directly involved in the research.

At that time, the Institute had already included the community

outreach and education programs in each of its NIEHS Centers of

Excellence, and these programs were subsequently reinforced.

Working with the Environmental Protection Agency, I helped establish a new children’s center program, among other programs. All

of these programs are designed to accelerate the discovery of environmental triggers in disease and to include community groups as

partners in the research.

I was personally involved in strengthening the community outreach programs by identifying and communicating best practices in

individual centers and in ensuring that the centers received extra

support for their community outreach efforts and instituting a system where these programs could be evaluated for success in community involvement and education.

Seeing the success of these endeavors convinced me that community based approaches have a very important role to play in the environmental health research enterprise. I was an advocate in developing the NIEHS community based participatory research programs and traveled and spoke extensively to gain the necessary

consensus and support for this concept.

As you can imagine, managing an enterprise as diverse and as

important as that of NIEHS requires balancing multiple needs and

demands. Thus, we are constantly seeking advice from the research

community, from a broad spectrum of community groups, and we

are open to new approaches not only in laboratory technologies but

23

also in managing the direction of the environmental health research we support. Because science and technology have changed

markedly in recent years, we must be aware of new opportunities

in science and incorporate them into our research.

We are looking at how emerging technologies can be used to enhance prevention strategies. For example, in the Exposure Biology

Program, which is part of the gene’s environment and health initiative, we are developing new genetic tools that will predict risk of

disease, along with small monitoring devices that will generate a

profile of an individual’s environmental exposures.

As we develop new programs, the evaluation of these programs

must be an ongoing process at NIEHS. We have recently evaluated

the children’s centers. We intend to continue to continue to support

these centers, at least at their previous level of support or higher.

We also intend to support community based participatory research. A similar program in environmental justice is still undergoing review. However, it is my intent that the NIEHS will continue to support environmental justice research.

Finally, I know that the subcommittee has a strong interest in

our journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. In June of this

year, NIEHS convened a roundtable discussion on EHP with the

community, including a number of investigative journalists. At that

time, we expressed—I expressed, our full support for the journal.

We are committed to restoring any cuts to the journal, including

the Chinese edition and the school edition. I can assure you that

the interest of the EHP will be fully represented and supported in

the fiscal year 2008 budget.

Now, in closing, NIEHS has a role to play in improving the

health of our Nation’s citizens. Our research has particular importance because it typically addresses those areas where we can prevent disease and intervene very early in disease development.

Thus, we have the ability to provide the Nation with strategies

that not only improve health but can greatly reduce health cost.

Such is the power of environmental health research. The full

benefit, however, can best be realized when environmental health

researchers are part of a team that includes community groups and

Congress and other Federal and State agencies. We all have a

stake in NIEHS, and we all share as partners in the environmental

health research enterprise. It is this relevance to the NIEHS in our

everyday lives that motivates me, and it’s why I feel privileged to

be here today.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear today and

provide this statement. I shall be happy to answer any of your

questions.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to note for the sake of the Members who

are curious as to why I didn’t call Dr. Wilson’s time, and mostly

those who are in the audience, this committee has a rule that all

witnesses are given 5 minutes. The good doctor has been given 11

minutes, which is double the time that any witness who has come

before this committee has been given.

Let me explain to the Members why, and I want members of this

committee to know, because this matter is of the utmost importance. Dr. Wilson has a high level of responsibility, and this committee will hold him to a high level of accountability in the questioning. So, because we are going to proceed in that way, I felt it

was a prudent approach to make sure that the doctor had ample

time to be able to make his presentation without interruption.

I would like to proceed with the first round of questions here,

and I want to begin by letting Dr. Wilson know that I am glad to

hear that he is going to fully restore environmental health perspectives.

I want to ask you, do you support restoring funding for the children’s centers?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I do. I think the funding for the children’s centers has actually been relatively stable.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does that mean full restoration, Dr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. When I ask ‘‘full restoration,’’ please be definitive

as to what that means to you.

Mr. WILSON. Well, it means that we started the children’s centers with 12 individual centers around the country, and the amount

of investment was approximately $7 to $8 million at that time, and

full restoration of the program would be consistent with that initial

investment. We think the program is very successful, and it is an

example of this partnership between academic medical researchers

and community groups working together to address important

problems.

Mr. KUCINICH. Doctor, do you support restoring the program that

has been eliminated entirely, which you said you helped create,

called the Community Based Participatory Research Environmental Health Program? Is that a yes?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. What about the Centers for Population Health

and Health Disparities?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I support that program.

Mr. KUCINICH. The environmental health sciences as an integrative context for learning, K–12 program?

Mr. WILSON. Uh-huh.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, when we talk about this, would you be prepared to elucidate? Are you talking about full restoration? Are you

talking about restoration in name only, so that you can say there

is a program? Or are you talking about really having these programs solid, fully restored, up and running? How would you respond? What would you respond?

Mr. WILSON. I fully support these programs and believe that they

are incredibly effective in terms of the successful pursuit of environmental health sciences research.

33

One thing I would like to add is we are continuing the programs

that have recently been discontinued and other mechanisms in our

portfolio. So we believe that this research approach is absolutely

fundamental and needs to be continued in the interest of successful

programs.

But, in some cases, the way that we initiated or sparked research

in this field has now matured to the point where it’s appropriate

to expect to support the research through other mechanisms. So

the overall commitment to community based participatory research

is absolutely solid and fundamental. The mechanisms that we use

to achieve this end point, however, need to be broader than the individual dedicated program that we have previously funded.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let’s talk about environmental justice, partnerships for communication to pre-Dr. Schwartz levels. What about

that? Do you support restoring that?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I do.

Mr. KUCINICH. Fully?

Mr. WILSON. Fully, yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you would hold it harmless from further cuts?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to read you a quote from a very high-ranking person within the NIEHS who is working with others to put

together a search committee that would hire a new editor in chief

for environmental health perspectives. I think it summarizes in

many ways my concern with the NIH’s direction under Dr.

Schwartz, who, by the way, had rhetoric that was quite impressive.

There was always a concern about his actions being consistent with

the rhetoric. So let’s get into this. ‘‘It would be nice if a candidate

actually worked in our field, or can at least consistently spell ‘environmental’ correctly, but it is more important that they know neuroscience broadly, represent the field and know how journals really

work.’’

That’s a direct quote. In other words, this quote seems to put a

priority on medical clinical research over environmental and public

health, kind of focus on the lab, Petri dish research, as opposed to

the studies of large populations for links between chemicals and

health problems. What’s your perspective on that?

Mr. WILSON. Well, I don’t support that statement, first of all. I

think the role of the editorship of EHP is an absolutely critical appointment for the Institute in these next several weeks, hopefully.

I think the overall——

Mr. KUCINICH. So the candidate will not only be able to spell ‘‘environmental’’ correctly, but will also be able to spell ‘‘public health’’

correctly.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, but to see public health and the importance of

the concept of public health, which is a concept that I am very

much committed to.

I think an individual who can represent this type of interest and

enhance the news section of the journal, plus the broader audience

for the journal, to advance the field of public health is fundamental. I am hoping that we can identify an individual of this type. We

are in the middle of the search process at the present time and

have finalists identified but haven’t yet made a choice.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Doctor.

34

My 5 minutes is expired. I recognize the ranking member, Mr.

Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eleven minutes would have

been fine with me. It’s not a problem.

Doctor, I will pick up where the chairman left off with a question. Since it’s a matter of public record, but I don’t have it in front

of me, what did the previous editor get paid? Or, if you can, what

range are you looking at for the replacement? I just wanted to understand whether spelling comes at a price and what that price is.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I don’t have that number in my mind at the

moment.

Mr. ISSA. North of $200,000?

Mr. WILSON. No, no, no.

Mr. ISSA. South of $200,000.

Mr. WILSON. It was way south of $200,000, something in the

range of $120- to $130,000 would be my assessment of it.

Mr. ISSA. I ask that because one of the challenges that you have

faced and you are facing right now is there have been two attempts

to privatize EHP. I would like your thoughts on that. And, quite

frankly, one of my reasons for asking that question is a premier,

believable, open, transparent, and trustable magazine probably

should pay more than $120,000 to get the best and the brightest.

So what I am asking, one, what do you think about privatization?

And, if not, two, if you are not able to get privatization, will you

recruit the best and the brightest for this within the confines of

private pay?

Mr. WILSON. Well, I don’t support privatization. I have indicated

that on the record at the council meeting for the Institute in May

and in other settings.

I am concerned about this level of salary that we have competed

this position for. The reason for competing it in the Title 5 GS scale

was that the appointment was consistent with the previous individual who occupied the position. We were hoping that we would be

able to have a timely appointment by using this mechanism, although I do share the concerns; and I will take a very careful look

at these final recommendations by the search committee and by the

selecting official in the case of how the search plays out.

Mr. ISSA. If you don’t mind elaborating a little bit more, because

it appears as though Dr. Schwartz, it was his instigation for this

privatization. Can you characterize, and I don’t want you to go beyond what you think is fair, but why? Why do you think this was

a priority?

Mr. WILSON. Well, I think Dr. Schwartz had a view that the journal could possibly be more successfully operated in the private sector, that the editorship could be more academic in its orientation,

and that the typical practices for publication of a journal of this

type in the private sector could also benefit the EHP.

I think a secondary factor in his view was the cost of the EHP,

the opportunity of maintaining involvement for the Institute and

influence over the journal and then, at the same time, having it

published in the private sector seemed to be a reasonable opportunity to evaluate.

So I think those were the two main forces driving this idea.

35

Mr. ISSA. It does appear as though you have to be on both sides

of this. On the one hand, you would like to get more dollars for the

structure. On the other hand, there isn’t.

This privatization—and I want to followup just a little bit more—

was more of a public-private scheme, if I understand correctly, because you did want to own and yet not operate, allow it to ‘‘float

up.’’ Was there any merit to that under your tenure that you would

explore to see if you couldn’t get a hybrid, one might say, like the

post office, which is clearly not private but has a level of autonomy?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, you are right. It was in one stage of the planning conceived as a partnership between NIEHS and a private organization. At another stage of the analysis, it was conceived as a

completely private activity, but at the same time the Institute

would have some linkage in the editorial process or in the board.

But my view is that the journal really is best served by being

published at the Institute. The reason for that is the broad public

health orientation of the journal and the opportunity to include

very, very high-quality information on what it means to conduct

these experiments that we are conducting in our research side of

the portfolio, what it means with regard to public health and to the

actual daily lives of individuals around the world and here in our

country.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that.

I will try to close very quickly. You mention in your opening

statement about the Chinese. That’s a printed Chinese language

version?

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Yes, it is.

Mr. ISSA. It’s circulated primarily where?

Mr. WILSON. In China, primarily.

Mr. ISSA. OK, so it’s an export.

I will just anecdotally say, quite frankly, they can print cheaper

in China. I might ask whether helping China by delivering information, and even potentially participating and making sure the

translation is correct, might actually be one of the cuts you say you

don’t want to do that I might question here from the dais, that perhaps the burden of anything other than making the copyrighted

material available and a partnership for translation, the balance of

it might reasonably be picked up by a Chinese entity. That’s why

I asked.

I would ask you for the record, because we have run out of time,

you said what you wouldn’t cut, for the chairman. I would appreciate, assuming no efficiencies—because we all know that efficiencies are mythological sometimes. We know that they exist, but

we never see them. Give us those items which you would cut or

which you intend to cut or at least those which you are considering

in order to balance a set of books while not cutting some very important programs, including the gentlelady from California’s questions on the children’s centers.

With that, I yield back and thank the chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. If the gentleman will respond briefly.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I think the programs that we have funded over

the years, especially during the NIH doubling, that represent capacity building in the area of gnomics and various other areas are

36

areas that we could look at for cutting. So in this broad category

of capacity building types of investments.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that Dr. Schwartz had convened a panel to review

the effectiveness of the centers. One of the panelists wrote a letter

to him, and he felt that the panel was skewed. Let me just read

very quickly, and then you can answer as we flee to the floor to

vote. Sorry.

A fundamental problem is that the review panel was highly

skewed in its composition. Despite its avowed focus on children’s

help, the panel did not contain a single pediatrician; and the panel

contained an abundance of very senior, highly accomplished laboratory scientists who have studied gnomics and epigenetics and the

developmental impacts of environmental toxins in experimental

settings.

Given this make-up, it is perhaps not surprising that the panel

chose to devaluate child-centered epidemiologic studies and to devalue the primary prevention of environmental diseases.

Would you agree that the composition was unbalanced?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I would.

Ms. WATSON. How do we then correct that? I think you have

been alluding to what you would like to do.

Mr. WILSON. Yes. But let me also point out that the committee,

even though not fully balanced, produced an outstanding report,

and the report was very strongly supportive of the children’s centers. As I said in my earlier comments, I was gratified to see that

and view the report as a strong endorsement of the children’s centers.

Ms. WATSON. So what will the focus—under your direction, what

will the focus be of these children’s centers?

Mr. WILSON. Well, in the initial stage of the centers, we first

funded eight, and those were focused fairly specifically on childhood asthma. Then we funded, in that first phase, four additional

centers; and these were focused on other topics, including autism

and various kinds of neurological development problems.

My view is that the structure of the center, for having a partnership between community groups and academic groups, should continue. That is, in each of the centers the structure is this mix of

community groups actually working on problems with the academic

researchers. So I think that structure is very, very powerful and

should continue.

Now, in terms of the topic areas, whether it’s asthma or development or some type of other metabolic problem, I see that question

as being defined by the community, the children’s health research

community not originally focused on the topic of asthma, as the

original program was heavily focused.

Ms. WATSON. Originally, I think the studies were to be on exposure assessment?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, of course.

Ms. WATSON. I understand that funds had been cut out of that

focus, and it has abandoned its commitment to the study by zeroing

37

out the funding for the study in 2007. Do you plan to continue

that?

Mr. WILSON. No, because in the environmental health sciences

we have to have exposure science in order to study the front end

of disease, so the exposure information is absolutely fundamental

in all of our centers. So you really can’t do environmental health

sciences research supported by our Institute without taking into account the exposures.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

This committee will be in recess until 3:30, where we will reconvene.

Mr. Tierney, do you have any questions of this witness?

Mr. TIERNEY. No, I will waive my questions to the witness. I am

sure he would like to move along.

Mr. KUCINICH. What I would like Dr. Wilson to know is that the

committee will have followup questions which we will submit to

you in writing and ask you to respond to those questions in writing

and continue the cooperation which you have shown here today and

to ask all of the witnesses to be back here by 3:30—let’s make it

3:25, in the interest of conserving time. Be back by 3:25. We will

do the best we can to start at that time.

The committee stands in recess.

[The information referred to follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

[Recess.]

Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order. There was a

vote call on the way back here, and so we’re mindful of Dr. Lucier’s

time constraints. And what we’re going to do is this: I’m going to

ask the witnesses to be sworn. I will go to Dr. Lucier so he can get

his statement in the record, and then we will discharge him as a

witness, provided he’s open to some written questions from the

committee, and then we will continue with the testimony of the

other witnesses.

I’m going to ask all the witnesses if they would please stand. It

is the custom and purpose of this committee to make sure the witnesses are sworn. I would ask that you raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

Dr. Lucier has a very extensive background, which we will submit for the record, but in the interest of facilitating his schedule,

I’m going to go to him for testimony right now.

You may proceed, Doctor. And please pull that mic up close to

you so we can hear you.

Mr. LUCIER. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich.

Mr. ISSA. See if the green light is on.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would staff assist Dr. Lucier in making sure that

he can get his testimony in the record?

I want to thank all of you for waiting.

Please proceed.

STATEMENTS OF GEORGE W. LUCIER, FORMER EDITOR IN

CHIEF OF EHP, FORMER ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF NTP;

LYNN R. GOLDMAN, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; PEGGY M.

SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WE ACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; AND STEFANI D. HINES, MEMBER, NATIONAL ADVISORY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

COUNCIL [NAEHSC], ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST, ALBUQUERQUE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. LUCIER

Mr. LUCIER. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, and thank you,

Chairman Issa. It is certainly an honor for me to testify here today

about my views on NIEHS’ support of environmental perspectives

in the National Toxicology Program. I worked at NIEHS for 30

years, and when I left, when I retired in 2000, I was Associate Director of the NTP and coeditor of Environmental Health Perspectives, a position that I had held for 28 years.

First let me begin by making some comments on EHP. In 2005,

when Dr. Schwartz came to NIEHS, EHP was considered the leading environmental health journal in the world. Its impacts by all

measures were steadily increasing, while at the same time costs

were decreasing. Dr. Schwartz, in a puzzling series of moves, attempted to dismantle the EHP under the false guise of saving

money.

Here are some relevant facts from my perspective. EHP is comprised of several sections, articles, science articles, news, the stuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
54

dent edition, international editions, Chinese, Spanish editions.

Each has important readership, and each has an important impact.

Dr. Schwartz attempted to cut or eliminate all but the science articles.

The impact factor, scientific impact factor, in the last 5 years has

nearly doubled. The mentions of EHP articles in the lay press has

increased from one per day to six per day. The last 3 months the

Web site was visited by 305,000 individuals from 207 countries. At

the same time, the cost was decreasing. The proportion of the NIH

budget taken by EHP was 0.67 percent in 2001; it was 0.46 percent

in 2005, a 50 percent decrease.

There has been a significant loss of senior staff. In 2001, EHP

had an editor in chief, two science editors and a news editor. Today

there is an interim editor on a part-time basis, no science editor,

and the news editor has been detailed to the Director’s office for

the last 9 months. It is amazing the journal still comes out and is

as good as it is.

I have a series of recommendations for you and the NIEHS, and

Dr. Wilson has addressed many of these. Restore the EHP budget

to 2005 levels. Restore the staffing levels. Fully fund the news section. Fund the Chinese and Spanish editions. Restore the student

edition. Establish a budget process for EHP that is consistent with

its important role in the NIEHS; don’t treat it as a second-class citizen.

Let me now make some comments regarding the National Toxicology Program. This program was established by Congress in 1978

as an interagency effort to provide toxicological evaluations on substances of public health concern. It is not a regulatory agency or

program, but it does provide key scientific information for those

who must make regulatory decisions. It has a primary role in disease prevention by identifying hazards in the environment and in

the workplace, in the home that may cause toxicity, and by characterizing those toxicities. We have to remember that a positive epidemiology or clinical finding really is a failure of public health policy.

Over its 29 years of existence, NTP has been considered the

world’s leading and most comprehensive toxicology research and

testing program. Many programs are still doing well in the NTP,

but there are several problems.

Dr. Schwartz seemed to view his dual role as NTP/NIEHS Director as an annoying inconvenience. NTP needs a Director who is

willing and wants to be enthusiastic about NTP and its important

mission in public health.

Two, Dr. Schwartz appeared to have a lackluster commitment to

the interagency activities of the NTP, and this is critical for its success. He appeared to prefer a go-it-alone approach.

Regarding the budget, it is hard to get a handle on the NTP

budget, but it does seem as a proportion of the NIH budget it is

going down. I recommend that the NTP budget be explicitly identified by Congress. Right now it’s not discernible as a separate budget entity. And the fact that the budget seems to be decreasing

shows up in the productivity of the NTP.

In 2005, 10 substances were begun for testing in the 2-year bioassay. In 2007, that had been diminished to four. Currently there’s

55

no studies being initiated for reproductive and developmental toxicity, and no study is being initiated for neurological toxicity.

Clearly this has to stop, and it doesn’t appear to me at this point

in time, even though there’s some mechanism-based toxicology initiatives, that there has been a compensatory increase in toxicological evaluations being done through mechanistic toxicology approaches.

And the last point is that there are a lot of vacancies in key staff.

It is important that the NTP and the NIEHS recruit top-notch people to fill those vacancies, because you can’t run a top-notch program without top-notch people.

So with that, let me conclude my oral testimony. The details are

found to a greater extent in my written testimony.

I apologize for having to go, but I’m in my new life. I am an

elected official. I’m a Chatham County commissioner in North

Carolina, and we are holding an important public hearing tonight

on zoning a part of the county that has not been zoned previously,

so you could expect that my constituents might not be happy if I

didn’t show up. So I apologize for running out the door, but thank

you for giving me this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucier follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Mr. KUCINICH. We completely understand. We thank you for testifying. You are dismissed as a witness, but you are greatly appreciated for your presence here. Thank you.

Mr. LUCIER. Thank you. And I look forward to your questions

and will respond promptly with answers.

Mr. ISSA. I also want to thank you, Doctor. Like all county commissioners, I know that you are not going to allow too much packing of density within the county within this new zoning. We trust

you to protect the Carolinas.

Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. LUCIER. I will do my best, Congressman.

Mr. ISSA. I am just lobbying for a beautiful place in a beautiful

State.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Dr. Lynn Goldman is a pediatrician and professor at the Johns

Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health where she

specializes in environmental health policy, public health practice

and children’s environmental health. She was appointed and confirmed in 1993 to be the Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and

Toxic Substances where she was responsible for the Nation’s pesticide, toxic substances and pollution prevention laws.

Dr. Goldman has conducted public health investigations on pesticides, childhood lead poisoning and other environmental hazards.

Dr. Goldman has served on numerous boards and expert committees, including the Committee on Environmental Health for the

American Academy for Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control

Lead Poisoning Prevention Advisory Committee, and numerous expert committees for the National Research Council. She is currently vice chair of the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, and chair of the IOM Gulf War and

health study. She’ll testify about the research and programmatic

priorities of the NIEHS.

Dr. Goldman, thank you. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LYNN R. GOLDMAN

Dr. GOLDMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Issa,

members of the committee. It is my honor to testify about the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. I will put my

full written testimony in the record with your consent.

As vice chair of the Roundtable on Environmental Health

Sciences, Research and Medicine, I know that environmental protection needs to be informed by environmental health science and

by the best science possible. And by environmental health I mean

a very broad view of environmental health that encompasses the

built environment, including places where we work. That encompasses the natural as well as the social environment. All of these

are important to promoting our health.

We know that the stakes are very high. We know that the cost

of regulation is very high. We also know that the cost of environmentally related diseases are very high, and therefore it is important that we have a sound basis for science on which to make decisions.

63

The NIEHS is the preeminent institution within our government

that does provide that science. It is the global center for toxicological research. And I think I can associate myself with the comments that Dr. Lucier made about its journal Environmental

Health Perspectives and about the work of the National Toxicology

Program.

When I was at the EPA for 2 years, I chaired the Executive

Board for the National Toxicology Program, and unique in my experience in government was the way that the NTP coordinates

among the agencies in Health and Human Services to make sure

that they are working together to assess toxic chemicals, as well as

bringing on board EPA, CPSC, OSHA, the regulatory agencies, so

that people are working together, sharing the science, sharing the

assessments.

NIEHS research has been so important not only in terms of diseases like cancer and respiratory diseases related to the environment, but also impacts that are more subtle, impacts on development of the brain, immune system, endocrine system that affect

populations, perhaps don’t cause disease, but perhaps are very important in terms of public health.

In the area of children’s health, along with EPA, NIEHS established the Centers of Excellence for Children’s Environmental

Health Research. These have been very important. It also participated in efforts to establish the National Children’s Study, but unfortunately these efforts have had reduced support over the last

few years.

NTP also has had reduced support, I think, in terms of fewer

starts; but on the other hand, one thing that’s a good thing that

has been happening is that the NIEHS has been supporting research so that we develop a better understanding of the mechanisms that are involved in the toxic action of agents. This is very

important for doing better assessments of risk, doing better epidemiology and so forth.

So I think that Congress may have put some expectations on the

NIEHS to show tangible results that may have resulted in the strategic plan that was issued in 2006. I thought that the process of

developing the strategic plan was a very open process and involved

the community of people in environmental health. However, there

were some puzzling aspects, and one in particular was the idea of

expanding the role of clinical research in environmental health.

We all would like to improve the way treatment is done at the

bedside. As a pediatrician I care about that terribly, but that is not

what the NIEHS has been known for. NIEHS has tended to make

its impact at other levels, translation of research to policy, to action

of communities, to things that in some instances are at a neighborhood level that can make an enormous difference for health.

I think the role of the NIEHS is very important today. Just to

name a few things, in a university such as mine, the NIEHS provides the bulk of the support for the cutting-edge research and environment health that we do, but it also enables us to train the

next generation of scientists. These scientists are not only needed

in the university, they are needed for government, for industry,

across society.

64

You heard about the Environmental Health Perspectives and the

role in providing judgment on chemical hazards, obviously improving actions for the public’s health.

The path forward, though, is not a simple one. There are enormous challenges for the NIEHS as it moves forward in the future.

There are thousands of chemicals that are in commerce, and despite the wonderful approaches that have been developed in the 2-

year bioassay and other assays, those approaches are no way robust enough to face up to the challenge that we have with all of

the things that we need to be able to look at. So the NIEHS does

need to have some balance. It needs to balance its traditional mission and responsibilities with a need to be creative and a need to

innovate and push forward the leading active environmental

science.

Thank you again.

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldman follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. ISSA. And now we go to Ms. Peggy Shepard. I will do my best

to be fair to your background as executive director and cofounder

of We Act for Environmental Justice, founded in 1988—you’re not

old enough to have been there then. Are you one of the founders?

Ms. SHEPARD. Yes, I am.

Mr. KUCINICH. Congratulations.

In West Harlem, We Act works to build community power, to improve environmental health policy and protection in communities of

color. She is the recipient of the 10th annual Heinz Award for the

Environment, and the Dean’s Distinguished Award from Columbia

School of Public Health in 2004.

We Act is a nationally recognized organization in the field of

community-based participatory research in partnership with the

Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

She is a member of the National Children’s Study Federation Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Shepard

serves as guest editor for EHP, which we’ve already established is

a tremendous magazine and periodical that we intend as a body up

here on a bipartisan basis to continue to support.

And with that, we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF PEGGY M. SHEPARD

Ms. SHEPARD. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and committee

members. I’m Peggy Shepard, cofounder and executive director of

We Act for Environmental Justice.

I’ve had the opportunity in the past to serve as Chair of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to the EPA and

as a member of the NIEHS Advisory Council. Currently I’m a

member of the NIEHS Public Interest Liaison Group.

When I first began organizing around the disproportionate impact of pollution on my community in northern Manhattan, I recognized that the lack of scientific literacy, information, data and context was and is a serious void that contributes to the systemic exclusion of communities of color and low income from decisionmaking that affects their families and their communities.

Evidence-based campaigns move policymakers and empower residents. Science and technology are important tools that can impact

on our ability to develop safe, sustainable communities. To achieve

these aims, we had to begin a process of inquiry that led to collaborative research projects over the last 12 years with research centers at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health.

We’ve had a total of 10 years of these partnership grants that

have allowed us and other partnerships nationally to develop capacity. As a result of these partnership programs, there is policy

and system change with all levels of government, academic institutions and community groups who want to work with us. And importantly, we are having impact on the field through our trainings,

findings, publications, policy changes, new models of action and the

new perception that it can be beneficial to work with affected communities.

Three years ago the Kellogg Foundation identified the We ActColumbia partnership as one of 10 community-based participatory

research projects that document the impact of CBPR on health policy. In a peer-reviewed article published last January in the JourVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
72

nal of Urban Health, the authors found the carefully designed

CBPR that is committed to strong science, high-level community

involvement, engagement in policy steps and activities, and the

strategic use of study findings to help impact policy can be an important part of the broader struggle for urban health and environmental justice.

Conversion of New York City’s buses to clean diesel and installation by the EPA of permanent of air monitoring in Harlem and

other hot spots were among outcomes for which the partnership’s

research and policy work was given substantial credit.

The effects of Dr. Schwartz’s new research direction have certainly being chilling. We know that the NIEHS has been the source

of key information regarding the health impacts of pollution. The

information that generates in its research is used daily in setting

protective Federal, State and local policies; in arguing for the protection of children, the elderly and our communities.

Though the NIEHS strategic plan states that they are committed

to research on populations that are exposed to high levels of environmental agents; however, it appears that the Director has cut

funding for CBPR and environmental justice partnerships, all of

those programs. It has made community partnerships optional with

the research centers, like the children’s centers that have been so

effective.

Prevention and environmental intervention represent the most

effective and efficient ways to improve human health, and this core

principle should not be lost in favor of technical, individually oriented medical solutions.

To answer the question of why some communities are more affected by some disease, NIEHS must continue to assess the degree

to which environmental exposures disproportionately impact specific communities, to understand the effects of multiple and cumulative exposures, and ultimately what types of intervention will effectively reduce those disparities in health burdens.

At one point the NIEHS had begun to look at the built environment as a key environmental exposure that merited further investment. We would hope that they would further consider that relationship between urban, suburban and rural built environments

and their relationship to obesity, respiratory health and cardiovascular health.

In addition, the NIEHS should continue training and research

programs that educate researchers and communities on ethical

issues associated with environmental health research.

The Children’s Environmental Health Centers Program has catalyzed development of the new subspecialty of environmental pediatrics and has provided an evidence base for a solid children’s environmental health and place-based advocacy movement here and

abroad, yet they recommended a cut in funding and a radical

change in the funding mechanism for the centers. And rather than

seek innovative opportunities to translate these developments in

lab science to the community and to field-test them, the NIEHS

proposes a retreat to the lab.

Review panels and study sections of the EJ, CBPR, and children’s centers research programs need to embody a broader range

of perspectives that include senior scientists from the fields of pediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
73

atrics, public health, preventive medicine, as well as public interest

advocates of environmental justice, CBPR, and public health.

And finally, the translation begins at home. The NIEHS peer-reviewed journal EHP, which has a solid scientific constituency,

needs to continue to create accessible and user-friendly environmental health resources and references for the media and other lay

consumers. They must continue to make EHP accessible in terms

of cost and its lay language reports and news articles to the public,

which in turn will bolster public support for the NIEHS.

I thank you for the opportunity to share with you the significant

public impact that NIEHS has had in the past and I hope will continue to have. I would like to urge this committee to ensure their

commitment to these remarkable and unparalleled programs, to restore the Environmental Justice and CBPR research programs at

2005 levels, to designate staff to participate and lead Federal interagency EJ and CBPR efforts, and to invite community representatives to engage in the strategic planning process.

The NIEHS has had a legacy of responding effectively to identified research needs of the most vulnerable. I hope it will return to

that legacy and to improving the health of this Nation’s residents.

Thank you, and you will have my full testimony.

Mr. KUCINICH [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shepard follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

Mr. KUCINICH. At this point I would like to introduce Ms. Stefani

Hines. Ms. Hines is a member of the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council. She’s a senior curriculum and assessment specialist and environmental health specialist at the College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico, and the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council. She is a congressionally mandated body that advises the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Director of the National

Institutes of Health, and the Director of the NIEHS in matters relating to the direction of research, research support, training and

career development supported by the NIEHS.

Membership of the NAEHSC consists of ex officio members and

18 leaders in the fundamental sciences, medical sciences, education

and public affairs. One-third of the Council must be public members. The Council will release a letter expressing concern for the

cost of public health as a result of the stated NIEHS set of priorities.

Thank you. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF STEFANI D. HINES

Ms. HINES. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich and Congressman Issa. It is an honor to be here today to share my testimony

regarding the scientific direction of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Of course, this is a CliffsNotes version

of my written testimony. In this testimony I describe my personal

recollection of an understanding of the position and opinions of the

National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council, which

is the advisory council for NIEHS.

I’d actually like to note that we have two Council members with

us today, Dr. Joe Graziano and Lisa Greenhill.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you for being here.

Ms. HINES. Although I am a member of the Council, I need to

clearly state that I am testifying as an individual, and that I am

not speaking in any formal capacity on behalf of Council.

With that said, I would like to inform you that the Council is

currently drafting a letter to Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, to

clarify its view on the new NIEHS 2006–2011 strategic plan. Because the letter is still under discussion and subject to change, I

cannot reveal its exact content, but I can share my recollection of

the issues, comments and sentiments expressed by Council.

It’s my understanding that the goal of the letter to Dr. Zerhouni

is to underscore the importance of NIEHS’s unique mission to advance environmental health-related research, as well as to emphasize the Council support of the new disease-oriented vision of the

NIEHS. This is a vision that is inclusive of multiple research tools

and approaches, including mechanistic research, prevention-based

research, clinical trials, population studies, and the communication

of NIEHS research for public benefit.

As I recall from various Council conversation, Council has two

main reasons for supporting an integrated disease-oriented research approach. One is to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking, hopefully generating new, and unique, and potentially significant research results. The other hypothesizes that a disease-oriented approach would bring environmental health research out of the sideVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
80

lines where it consists only of testing chemicals for toxicity into a

more mainstream rule where research would investigate how environmental agents contribute to specific diseases that impact public

health on a large scale.

Thus the support of disease-oriented environmental health research does not exclude support of the more historic and the traditional methods that have been used, including testing chemicals for

toxicity, the valuable role of NTP and other research. Indeed, these

toxic chemicals may be contributing to major diseases in significant

ways. But I would like to make a distinction between a vision or

a concept and an implementation of that concept. Although Council

has expressed general support for the strategic plan, three Council

members, Lisa, Hilary Carpenter and myself, have expressed concerns about the erosion of disease-prevention educational activities

in the NIEHS portfolio. The strategic plan makes provisions for

those activities, but the reality is that outreach and education programs, for example, and other things that it paints have been

eliminated, so it is not implemented in the way that—what is said.

To conclude this part of my testimony, the Council recognizes it

is important in an advisory role to NIEHS. We have an incredible

group of minds and a diversity of experience on this Council that

really could be utilized more than it is. Thus Council has identified

several ways it can strengthen its advisory role within NIEHS.

The Council is currently assembling a formal list of requests for

NIEHS, including requesting specific information similar to what

was provided here, so it will be very helpful for us, and also requesting some procedural changes such as having Council provide

inquiry on the time allocation, the content of meeting agendas, and

to allow for our questions and in-depth discussions.

The letter to Dr. Zerhouni that I previously mentioned as well

as this list of Council requests are being written and circulated currently among Council members. We anticipate to have those completed in the next 2 to 3 weeks.

I thank you very much for your time and consideration of these

important matters and for recognizing the value and the unique

mission of NIEHS. The environment plays a significant role in the

etiology of disease, in teasing out the nature of that role through

innovative interdisciplinary research, and then providing mechanisms for the communication of that information will go a long,

long way toward protecting public health.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hines follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

Mr. KUCINICH. At this point we’re going to go to at least one

round, if not two, of questions of the witnesses. And we thank you

for your cooperation.

You have now heard Dr. Wilson’s testimony, and I’m glad that

Dr. Wilson remains with us. Did Dr. Wilson allay your concerns

about the research direction and priorities of NIEHS? You heard

his statement, and you also heard him respond to questions. Did

he allay your concerns?

I would just like to start with Dr. Goldman and get a brief response from each of the witnesses.

Dr. GOLDMAN. I should start by saying, and I should have said

before, that the views I’m expressing are my own and not of Johns

Hopkins University.

I was very heartened by what I heard Dr. Wilson say about the

journal, about the commitment to children’s health, Environmental

Justice community-based participatory research. But did it allay

my concerns? It did not, because I’m very concerned that through

this whole process there has been a breakdown in morale at

NIEHS, and also there has been a breakdown in some of the communication with the broader environmental health community.

I know that Dr. Wilson and the other leadership at the institute

understand this. I think some time and some effort is going to be

needed to rebuild those bridges and to bring the community back

together again. And a lot of listening with many communities is

going to be needed, not just Peggy Shepard’s community, but many

other communities that have been in one way or another impacted

by this. I really had a sense that things could be moving in the

right direction. I’m very encouraged.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

Ms. Shepard.

Ms. SHEPARD. Yes. I am very heartened. I know that Mr. Wilson

helped develop some of these key programs that have been so beneficial, and I certainly believe that he’s sincere in wanting to continue them.

I’m a little concerned about sort of the fine print. You know, I’d

like to know that not only will moneys be restored to the EJ and

CBPR programs, but that new RFAs will continue to be published.

I’d also like to ensure that the funding mechanism for the children’s centers is not simply the RO1 mechanism, which is a problematic mechanism, but that there will continue to be a pool of

moneys that funds centers.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Ms. Hines.

Ms. HINES. I, too, am encouraged by what Dr. Wilson had to say.

I think the—as we have seen, the implementation of action is

where the rubber hits the road, and the details and how this is

done, of course, is very important. And citing the children’s center

as an example, restoring funding is part of it.

However, Council expressed concerns about the children’s center

report on the evaluation related to that. Actually the evaluation

and the summary of it was quite good. It was the recommendations

that came out of it that there was a real disconnect. And if—and

so I don’t know how supportive Council would be if those recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
87

ommendations were implemented. I think that would be a real cost

to the center.

Also I think that the Council can have—play a very important

role in helping to provide connections to the community and provide guidance with respect to prioritization, because I don’t know

that we’re going to be able to do everything unless funding is increased.

Mr. KUCINICH. Of course. Thank you.

I would just like to go down the line again and ask this question:

Are there any programs that have been cut since about fiscal year

2005 that are critical to NIEHS’s ability to protect public health,

but that we have not heard about today? Anything that we should

have covered that we didn’t that you’d like to make a statement

about?

Dr. Goldman.

Dr. GOLDMAN. I can’t really think of any programs that have

been eliminated. I think that it might be that it could be a good

thing to take a careful look at that. I have a sense in looking at

the charts that you showed that there’s been a lot of movement of

money around from here to there. And even as knowledgeable as

I am about the NIEHS, I’m having a hard time understanding

where some of that came from.

For example, there was coverage in the science press about the

funding for the NIEHS Director’s laboratory. I have wondered

where did that come from? I did not see that in the charts. And

so I think it would be—and I suspect that some of that may have

come from some of intramural activity, some of the activities of the

NIEHS scientists, and I think it might be well worth looking at

some of that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Ms. Shepard, is there anything that has been cut that has been

critical that we haven’t heard about?

Ms. SHEPARD. I wouldn’t like to address that specifically, but I

would say that the larger strategic plan that has been worked on

the last year or so needs to be reassessed. I would hope that there

would not be a signup by the Council on that plan without a strong

review and reassessment of new directions, as well as where they

need to return.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Ms. Hines, do you have anything that you’d like to add to that?

Ms. HINES. I don’t—if you define ‘‘critically,’’ I don’t at this point.

I would need to take a look at it to be better able to——

Mr. KUCINICH. We would like to you stay engaged with us on this

question as this develops.

I do want to note as I go to my colleague that it is encouraging

that Dr. Wilson has stayed in the hearing to listen to this testimony. That’s—that, I believe, is an encouraging sign.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Hines, I’m—to get a grip on what’s happening here, let me

ask a question that’s not intended to be rhetorical. As a semi-insider, semi-outsider you may be the best witness to answer this.

The strategic plan that looked good on paper a year ago, and you

said it quite eloquently so I won’t try to repeat it, if I see it corVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:40 Oct 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44007.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
88

rectly, that was a great plan assuming that as one of the stepchildren of NIH, 1 of 27, the money was there to do it. In a nutshell is that the basis under which you say it is a great idea, but

you didn’t tell us what you were going to cut to do it if you didn’t

get money?

Ms. HINES. I would say that’s a fair summary, yes.

Mr. ISSA. And, Dr. Goldman, based on your past experience in

this ever vast bureaucracy, but looking at NIH and its 27 separate

grants within its own government institutes, shouldn’t the process

that Dr. Schwartz have bought—got buy into been as much up for

the funding as down for the approval with peers in the community?

Is that one of the fundamental failures?

He’s not here. I’m hoping the chairman will allow us to send

written questions or possibly ask the doctor to come in to defend

himself, but isn’t that essentially what this hearing is about today?

If there were enough money to your cake and eat it, too, and I

mean that in the best possible sense, we wouldn’t be having this

hearing, because none of the things that he wanted to do, as I understand here today, were inherently bad. The problem is the sacrifices made in the name of doing those other things.

Dr. GOLDMAN. I think that one of the fundamental rules of managing a complex agency like NIEHS, and it is very complex, is that

you don’t want to have any surprises between you and those above

you. In Congress there needs to be completely open communication.

And also——

Mr. ISSA. The next administration, if you’re in it, I’m going to

keep those lines, because we only get surprises on the Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform.

Dr. GOLDMAN. I know.

I think the other thing, too, though, is that you can’t make decisions alone. I’ve been the head of a large governmental agency, and

you do have a lot of power, but you are not able to make decisions

unilaterally; you work together with people in a team, and both the

team that you’re with and the agency, the people below you, the

people above you, the constituencies. And if there’s anything that

I could point to in terms of the implementation, it was, as you

would say, ideas, bad ideas on paper, great ideas, and more kind

of the mode of making decisions, of going it alone on issues where

you really can’t be successful if you go it alone.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that.

Ms. Hines, let me ask you to speculate for a moment. Having

worked with Dr. Schwartz, do you think he had or thought he had

buy-in from NIH for this reshuffling?

Ms. HINES. Um, that would be entirely a speculative response.

Mr. ISSA. Let me ask you another question. Within the National

Institutes of Health, many of the programs that—the directions he

was going, in fact, are covered or could be covered by many of the

other institutes that make up NIH; is that correct?

Ms. HINES. As long as the health and the environment, the environmental health is kept as a primary focus, and all of the research

and all of the activities, then it is a unique role. If you remove the

E in the EH, then sure, it could potentially be——

Mr. ISSA. Well, the reason I ask, this is the most effective place,

but for the chairman and myself as we—if the chairman would

89

allow a followup hearing, do we need to move upstream to the NIH

and ask the bigger picture of what is your plan to cover what I

said, ‘‘cake and eat it, too,’’ earlier, but to cover two important

issues, the areas that Dr. Schwartz was anticipating going into and

the ones that have historically been critical to this organization; is

it fair to say that we should as an organization of oversight ask is

there a plan, what is the plan, how would you do it? Would you

propose more funds for this organization or, in fact, other efficiencies, because that seems to be to be one of my questions that’s

unresolved. Nobody here is saying what he wanted to do was bad.

What we’re saying is what he had to cut to do it took him away

from some core critical items without any way to make it up.

Ms. Shepard, I wasn’t leaving you out, but you are one of the

core critical items that was being left out, so I take for granted that

we know you believe it is important, this dais, on both sides of the

aisle agree that it is important. I’m trying to see where we go from

here. Your testimony has been very compelling to me and to all of

us, but we have to figure out do we do both, and, if so, where do

we get it from what has been a growing pot of money?

NIEHS has not been starved by anyone’s definition, but the question is how did this happen? Is there a management problem not

just at this one institute, but at the bigger NIH?

If anyone has any comments, I obviously yield back. I’ve expired

my time.

Ms. HINES. Well, I think that there are some partnerships that

are occurring between NIEHS and some of the other institutes at

NIH, and that seems to be one mechanism for sort of leveraging

some of the kind of research.

As far as the question you’re asking is important, and it really

is beyond my individual ability just to say it, to provide an adequate answer other than I think that Council with—can provide—

can be one resource to help think through these things.

Mr. ISSA. Yes, Dr. Goldman.

Dr. GOLDMAN. I think what Dr. Wilson said in his testimony suggested one strategy; which is, that over the last few years I have

been very well aware—and most of the community have—the

NIEHS has been undertaking some fairly large investments in new

infrastructure related to newer technologies with genomics and so

forth.

That might be a place where, once those investments are in

place, the infrastructure is in place, there might be revenues freed

up for it.

But the reality is, of course—and if scientists have a lot of good

ideas, there will always be more good ideas than there is money.

So it will always have to be painful to students about what things

are funded and what aren’t funded. Everything doesn’t get funded.

That is just a reality.

But, again, it gets back, then, to how do you do that; how do you

do that so that you have the support of the people you work with,

the community, Congress and all of that? I think that, again, is the

problem.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if I can ask unanimous consent for my team to

put together some followup questions directed through Dr. Wilson,

90

but in an attempt to get answers, so that we can consider on a bipartisan basis whether to hold a followup hearing that might involve more of NIH.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am certainly interested in working with you on

this, so if our staffs could collaborate on this and come up with

some agreement as to how we proceed, I would like to do that.

Mr. ISSA. I look forward to that, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, we have Dr. Wilson still here, so he could agree to

take the questions right now.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think Dr. Wilson has acquitted himself well

today, and he should rest on his first testimony and see if we can

progress from there.

I would like to just have a brief second round, if we may, and

to begin with asking Ms. Hines, you mentioned inaccuracies in the

minutes of the council meeting, but you didn’t address the reason

for that.

Why do you think the inaccuracies occurred? Is there is any reason to think management was altering meeting minutes or reporting them inaccurately? They just happened to be inaccurate? What

do you think happened?

Ms. HINES. I don’t know. I really am hesitant to speculate on

that. I think that sometimes there can be errors in just omission,

or perhaps misunderstanding of what is communicated, or emphasizing one small piece of it. I do think that it is important that the

minutes accurately reflect what took place at a council meeting, because it is a public record. If the minutes are going to be referred

to in the future some way—for example, the children’s study. That

section on the children’s study and our discussion related to that

was something you can’t adequately capture the sentiment of council related to the recommendations of the review. So should somebody come back to those minutes and say, well, what did council

think of it, it just was not a fair representation of what council

said.

Mr. KUCINICH. We in the Congress occasionally have a moment

where we will actually vote on approval of the journal. We take

this very seriously. It is this issue of minutes.

So I would hope that the council and others who are involved in

meeting processes would understand that this Chair—and I would

ask the ranking member if he would weigh in on this—that we feel

very strongly about the accuracy of minutes, because there is a

point at which it does have legal bearing and there is legal responsibility taken. If someone at some point deliberately changes the

minutes of the meeting or misreports them, there are legal consequences. In the interests of maintaining the kind of felicity with

which this committee is proceeding, it would be good, I think, for

people to take note of that.

Mr. Issa, would you like to add?

Mr. ISSA. I couldn’t agree more with the chairman. To make the

matter even more so, often, when we get done passing laws, people

look to our debate to figure out what they meant. We would hope

that it not be so, but it has been so since the beginning of our

Founding Fathers where they read the Federalist papers to figure

out what the Constitution meant.

91

So I think it is important. Words do matter. We would hope that

it would be accurate and that it be sustained by all Members.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank my colleague.

I just have one final question of Dr. Goldman. It has been said

that small clinical research studies, like those proposed in the children’s center and elsewhere in the institute under Dr. Schwartz,

will not give us enough quantitative information that is necessary

to create reduced exposure standards for the general public.

What is your opinion on that?

Dr. GOLDMAN. I think it is very difficult to make that kind of a

generalization.

Mr. KUCINICH. Could you refine it, then?

Dr. GOLDMAN. I will refine it. I think there are certain situations

under which clinical studies have been appropriate and they have

been helpful. But many environmental exposures you would never

learn about by doing small clinical studies. I think where you

might have more to gain is, for example, some of the studies that

have been done, people who have asthma, that is triggered by very

low levels of pollutants. Small clinical studies can tell you how that

happens.

One of the questions I had was why it was necessary to invest

so much in that particular initiative at this time at the NIEHS,

and, for a couple of reasons. One is that within RTP, there is a

clinical research center that is run by the EPA at their lab that I

have been through, and very little research was occurring. I always

wondered whether or not there would have been an opportunity to

share in that resource, why a new test lab needed to be developed.

There was also a clinical research facility at NIH in Bethesda,

and what was wrong with that? I never really understood why a

new center needed to be built, especially in a location that is in a

hospital within a hospital. I would never doubt that under some

circumstances these small clinical studies can provide us with some

valuable information, but I don’t have a perception that we have

a lack of capacity of places to perform them.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would just like to make this final comment and

then turn it over to Mr. Issa for a closing round of questions, if he

so desires, and that is that this hearing inevitably reflects on the

philosophy of research. The way in which research is conducted depends on philosophical questions and also the manner of research.

Do you proceed inductively or deductively? Is the research longitudinal, is it quantitative or qualitative, or a merger of both?

These reflect on some of the questions that are raised here. And

while I don’t think this committee has any interest in pointing people in the direction of how they should do their research, because

it is kind of outside the scope of this, we certainly want to make

sure that the research that is done can hold up to a peer review.

I just wanted to offer that for your consideration and for the good

doctor’s consideration as to this committee’s concern that we not

exclude a certain body of research that would then change the findings; for example, the effect of certain types of pollutants on public

health.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further questions.

92

I would close, though, in thanking the witnesses, both first and

second panel. I found this to be very informative. Like often happens with our committee, though, it has opened more questions

than it has answered. I think, Dr. Goldman, we talked beforehand,

just a little bit about how nice it was to hold a hearing for this important organization.

At the end of it, I can’t say that we can’t look at 27 institutes.

What we can do, I believe, is use this as a springboard to look at

NIH and whether or not each institute is treated as a CEO, autonomous—in which case Dr. Schwartz’s buy-in and direction probably

was within his purview—and, if, in fact, there has to be coordination, leveraging, real collaborative efforts, which there are some,

obviously, but it has to be part of the culture of the NIH. And they

have to promote it with 27 pockets of money plus some other

grants.

It sounds like that may be the question for this committee that

really can delve into whether or not NIH has the plan to leverage,

as Ms. Hines and others have said; and, Dr. Goldman, you said it

too. You have been to these other facilities, you have seen these

other capabilities. And leveraging, and a plan to leverage them

can’t be from the division vice president of this entity, it has to

come from the overall NIH down, in a way that encourages all

those segments to work together and, of course, rewards them in

their funding for leveraging technology.

So I would hope that is the message that we close with today,

and I look forward to working with the chairman on this important

issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from California for his cooperation. When we cooperate from this chair, it really has the

ability to create new policies or to strengthen one that needs to be

strengthened.

On behalf of the committee, we thank the witnesses and everyone in the audience who stayed with us during the course of this

hearing. We ask you to be available for an exchange of questions

from the committee.

If there is no further business before this committee, this committee, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ