 |
|
     |
|
 |
Dear Colleagues,
A recent article in the Washington Post (see this month's Washington Update and www.washingtonpost.com) about the possible intrusion of politics into the scientific advisory process at the Department of Health and Human Services shines a new light on the complexity of translating new scientific insights into useful knowledge to guide health policy and routine health practice.
In cataloguing the barriers along that pathway, we easily recite the traditional obstructions: few resources for research into implementation and dissemination, little synthesis of information, sparse incentives for clinicians to adopt new practices. It is rare in such discussions to talk about how politics shapes research priorities and agendas at HHS, NIH and CDC, perhaps because such influence is usually less visibly partisan than it is now.
It appears that the government is moving out of the business of using the knowledge generated by its investment in research to protect and improve the health of its citizens and instead plans to allow the marketplace to determine what is safe and effective.
This issue is worthy of your attention and your voice.
Regards --
Jessie Gruman, PhD
P.S. Congratulations to Norman Anderson, a leader in health behavior change and former director of the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, who is Chief Executive Officer Designate of the American Psychological Association. We look forward to his confirmation, and to his productive and creative leadership in this important position!
|
|
|||||
 |
|||||||
