Noel Lloyd, Author at Friends of the National Institute on Aging

Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus picture

Does Aging Bring Wisdom?

Time: September 16, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Location: B340 Rayburn House Office Building
City/Town: Washington, DC
Event Type: congressional, biomedical, research,caucus, briefing
Organized By: Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus

Dr. Shelley Carson
Harvard University

In her briefing for the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, Dr. Carson examines the deterioration of memory in older adults in a new light — not that of a mind being ravaged by dementia, but instead a mind widening its ability to process more details than that of a younger brain. For decades, cognitive research on the older brain has focused on the decline of thinking abilities. Newer research, however, suggests that much of this observed decline may actually result from lifestyle changes or illness rather than from inevitable brain atrophy.

Dr. Carson highlights how scientists are now beginning to focus on ways that cognition can actually improve with age. Research suggests that brainpower is not declining but that more information is being processed. Dr. Carson reviews the research on age-related brain changes and brain plasticity, and discusses how these changes affect wisdom and creativity. She also discusses initiatives to maintain and even improve cognition in later years.

Recovery Act funding through NIA

Posted by Kimberly Acquaviva, PhD, MSW on August 19, 2009 at 11:40am

Over the past several months, our colleagues at the National Institute on Aging have been extremely busy working to ensure the rapid, efficient, and effective distribution of Recovery Act/ARRA funds to investigators across the county. If you’re curious about which projects have been funded by NIA with Recovery Act funds, check out the following website:

http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm

To run a report specific to NIA and the Recovery Act, follow these simple steps:

1) Click the first box on the top left column to select “Show only projects supported by NIH Recovery Act funds.”

2) Click the blue “Select” button next to Agency/Institute/Center on the top right column to open the IC pick list window, then click the box next to “National Institute on Aging.” Click the blue “select” button at the bottom of the pick list window.

3) Click “Submit Query” to generate a report listing all of NIA’s ARRA-funded projects-to-date.

I think you’ll agree the list of funded projects is pretty impressive. And this is just a partial list – as funding decisions are made over the coming months, additional funded projects will be added to the list. Let’s have a round of applause (along with a standing ovation!) for all the NIA administrators, researchers, staff members, and study section/special emphasis panel reviewers who have been working tirelessly to process and review all of these grant proposals. Thank you all so much – your efforts are greatly appreciated by the patients and families who ultimately benefit from the research you fund!

The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research issues letter in support of the NIH peer review system

Posted by Kimberly Acquaviva, PhD, MSW on August 19, 2009 at 11:12am

The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research issued a request earlier today for organizational endorsements to a letter that have written in support of the NIH peer review system. The letter will be sent to all Senators prior to Senate floor action on the FY 2010 Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. If your organization would like to sign the Ad Hoc Group’s letter, please contact Hayzell Gollopp at [email protected]. The deadline for sign-ons is 4 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2.

See below for text of the Ad Hoc Group’s letter:

_________________________________________________________________________
September #, 2009

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

The undersigned patient groups, scientific and medical societies, research institutions, and industry organizations urge you to uphold the competitive, scientific peer review system and vote against any amendment to the Senate FY 2010 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that would eliminate funding for specific research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The medical research supported by NIH over the past 60 years has made the United States the world leader in science and medicine and has added to the length and quality of life of millions of Americans. Congress has been responsible for investing the resources that have made NIH’s extraordinary success a reality.

To be sure, Congress has oversight responsibility for ensuring that proper policies and procedures are in place to ensure that these funds are effectively allocated based on sound scientific judgment and competitive, merit review. The remarkable advances achieved through NIH-supported research confirm the effectiveness of those policies and procedures. By protecting the scientific peer review system, which subjects research proposals to rigorous evaluation for scientific and public health merit, Congress ensures that the highest-quality research – research that contributes directly to public health – is funded with federal dollars. The scientific merit and public health benefit from an individual study is not always apparent outside this careful review.

Eliminating funding of individual NIH grants undermines vital research as well as the peer review system –the best system for ensuring scientific and fiscal accountability on behalf of the American taxpayer. For our nation’s public health, and for the continuing success of the U.S. medical research enterprise, we urge you to oppose any amendment that targets individual NIH research grants in this manner.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

FINDING AND FUNDING THE BEST SCIENCE: PEER REVIEW AT NIH

Time: July 22, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Location: 121 Cannon House Office Building
City/Town: Washington, DC
Event Type: congressional, biomedical, research,caucus, briefing
Organized By: Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus

Dr. Keith Yamamoto
University of California, San Francisco

Each year Congress appropriates billions of dollars to fund the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Did you ever consider how the money is distributed? With a budget of roughly $30 billion per year, the decisions that most strongly influence allocation of NIH funds are made by peer review by groups of professional scientists who typically are themselves funded by NIH. Is peer review really the best way to fund biomedical research? Are there intrinsic problems that compromise it? Could changes in peer review improve the quality of research?

These and other issues are discussed by Dr. Keith R. Yamamoto, an active scientist who has been involved in NIH peer review for almost 25 years, most recently leading an overall evaluation that produced key changes in the process.

Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care for Older Americans

Time: June 17, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Location: 122 Cannon House Office Building
City/Town: Washington, DC
Event Type: congressional, biomedical, research,caucus, briefing
Organized By: Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus

Dr. Chad Boult
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

Dr. Chad Boult and his team have created a new model of comprehensive health care, called Guided Care, which targets people living with multiple chronic conditions, the typical high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. His plan is based on the simple premise that a patient’s “care plan” is well coordinated, and patients and families are involved in and educated about the care plan. Guided Care is based on the simple notion that one trained professional should guide all aspects of care, uniting the patient, the family, and the medical team.