In November of 2010, the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) recommended the establishment of a new institute for substance use, abuse, and addiction-related research and the dissolution of NIAAA and NIDA. After receiving the SMRB’s recommendation, I established a Task Force of scientific experts to begin a comprehensive review of the NIH substance use, abuse, and addiction research portfolio. The Task Force has met with subject matter experts from across the NIH to learn about our investments in these areas of research. During this review, it has become apparent that our portfolio in substance use, abuse, and addiction research is very complex and that the administrative steps required to implement a reorganization of this magnitude are substantial. Additionally, during the last few months, many stakeholders have requested additional input into the development of the scientific plan for the new Institute.
Based on the complexity of the portfolio, feedback from our stakeholders, and the administrative requirements to implement this reorganization, I have decided that the NIH should take additional time to review and integrate the substance use, abuse, and addiction portfolio before building the proposed institute. This will include the development of a scientific strategic plan for substance use, abuse, and addiction research and the coordination of the intramural programs of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. These processes will be informed by stakeholder input.
The coordination of the substance use, abuse and addiction portfolio across the NIH (including, but not limited to NIDA, NIAAA and NCI) will enable the NIH to determine the scope of the proposed institute and plan for its creation, currently targeted for Fiscal Year 2014 (October 1, 2013). The NIH is committed to continuing and strengthening substance use, abuse, and addiction research. By aligning the efforts across the NIH, we will be able to assess the breadth and depth of the portfolio to ensure the support of research of the highest priority.
I think we should be moving beyond substance abuse and addiction and also be moving towards food addiction and how we can manage obesity in our society.
Its great news to have the NIH dedicating more time on drug abuse.More effort should also be made to stop the availability of the abundance of drugs in our neighbourhood.
Substance abuse research is so important for our society as a whole. I find it refreshing that there are institutions being put in place to further our knowledge in these areas. The more information we have about these subjects the more likely we will be able to formulate new treatments and also put together preventative methods to help people in need.
The proposed new institute is a step in the right direction and I am very happy to see it being put together.
Concurrent development of the portfolio assignment and the strategic plan makes no sense. No matter how much interaction or cross-talk there is between groups, in the final analysis, portfolio assignment MUST be complete before strategic planning for the future direction of that portfolio can be anything but a waste of time. For example, the planners must know to what extent “tobacco” is in the portfolio: does that include grants on policy? grants on the mechanisms of smoking-induced cancer or heart disease? what about grants on the RISK (if not the actualy physiology) for cancer or heart disease? grants on treatment and cessation, or only on addiction mechanisms? second- or thrid-hand smoke? Same questions for food addiction/obesity, for non-addictive aspects of alcohol use (i.e., subsequent organ damage solely and wholly attributable to alcohol), etc.
Dr. Tabak’s presentation indicated that various stakeholder groups (presumably including the scientific community) will have input into the development of the scientific strategic plan for the new institute. However, as there remain hints (though no one seems willing to publicly confirm the specifics, despite promises of transparency) that some research areas currently covered by the NIAAA and/or NIDA portfolios will move to places other than the Addiction Institute, it is unclear how the affected constituencies will provide input on those areas. On the one hand, it seems untenable that the new Addiction Institute will have a say in some other Institute’s strategic plan, and on the other hand there has been no indication that any of those other “recipient” institutes will be undertaking their own stratgic plan revisions that will suddenly be opened to input from the newly-”disenfranchised” former NIAAA/NIDA stakeholders.