If you have comments or questions not related to the current discussions, please direct them to NIH-Listens@mail.nih.gov

If you are looking for general information about the National Institutes of Health, or the 27 Institutes and Centers, please visit http://www.nih.gov/

Web Meeting Slides and Audio File

On April 2, 2012, NIH hosted a one-hour web meeting to discuss the Request for Information (RFI) to solicit new ideas in substance use, abuse, and addiction-related research, and the development of a Scientific Strategic Plan for the proposed new Institute. The web meeting slides, audio file, and transcript are available for those who were not able to join the meeting.

We look forward to receiving your input on the RFI, which closes on Friday, May 11. Please send any questions to NISUADinfo@mail.nih.gov.

12 comments to Web Meeting Slides and Audio File

  • Pranoti Mandrekar

    I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine at University of Massachusetts Medical School. Effects of alcohol on end-organ is a major focus of our research. Alcohol abuse remains the leading cause of organ injury pathogenesis (e.g, liver, breast etc) and has a major outcome on traumatic injury as well. Our studies are directed in elucidating the role of alcohol in liver injury, progression of disease and cancer. Most of our funding comes from NIAAA. I would highly recommend on behalf of our group at UMMS and other groups working in similar areas elsewhere, that it is crucial for the new Institute to focus on alcohol and end-organ injury, as any disruption of funding in this area of research may severely hamper the progress in dealing with treatment of patients with alcohol-related diseases.

  • Concerned Researcher

    I am writing in response to the RFI on the Scientific Strategic Plan for the proposed National Institute of Substance Use and Addiction Disorders. The Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) put forward a recommendation to dissolve NIDA and NIAAA and create an institute incorporating not just substance use and abuse, but also including addiction-related research. On page 19 of the SMRB report, they state that the mission “…should reflect the diverse array of substances… and behaviors (e.g. gambling, exercise, sex) that have demonstrated the potential for compulsive use and abuse…” They further state that one of the purposes of this mission as “A new and unified vision for effectively meeting currently unmet scientific opportunities and unmet public health needs in research on substances and behaviors with the potential for abuse and addiction.”
    Given these new and strong mission statements it is very surprising that the preliminary list of potential scientific opportunities do not appear to reflect any of these considerations. The list of scientific opportunities only lists substance-related areas, with absolutely no mention of any behaviors or new areas of research. The creation of a new institute (and the dissolution of 2 major institutes) represents a major shift in focus and strategy of the NIH – one might expect that this would spur research into related areas such as gambling, or other compulsive behaviors (purported to be included in the new institute) and perhaps how these might relate to substance use disorders and their treatments. The absence of any scientific concern or opportunities in these ‘newer’ addiction-related areas is quite striking and puts into the question whether the SMRB findings are given consideration at all. Indeed, the generated list of potential scientific opportunities appears to completely miss its own primary goal of identifying new scientific opportunities currently not support in the existing NIH structure. A restructuring of a new single institute for Substance Use and Addiction Disorders represents an innovative reorganization, it will be important that this new institute be able to effectively and creatively incorporate new areas, including the understanding of a wider array of related disorders, understanding unique and related mechanisms, and encouraging the medical and research community in the prevention and treatment of these disorders.

  • I am soundly opposed to the proposed restructuring of NIAAA and NIDA into a new single entity whose focus is addiction.

    This would greatly lose momentum and focus on the innovative and relevant work that is currently being conducted in alcohol research today.

    The vast majority of Americans use, but do not abuse alcohol. The fact remains that many studies have shown a beneficial effect of moderate (1-2 drinks per day) alcohol consumption, yet we know very little concerning the physiology of these effects. Conversely, a significant part of alcohol abuse is associated with binge drinking. NIAAA researchers are making advances in this area. It is important to note that neither of these issues have anything at all to do with dependence and addiction. An addiction-centric attitude does not serve the health needs of Americans when it comes to alcohol research.

    Organ-system biomedical research into the pathophysiologic effects of alcohol greatly impacts medicine and such research would be orphaned by a new addiction institute. In my opinion, the only group who would benefit from this new restructuring would be the additional administrative staffers who would be added to the new levels of bureaucracy created by this folly.

    Taxpayers would certainly not benefit from this reckless and unnecessary homage to one man’s vision of how the NIH should be structured.

  • Xuejun Zhao

    I am a research assistant professor at University of Pittsburgh. I used to work on alcohol related research, and I think we should not merge the NIAAA and NIAD together as each of them works on different aspect.

  • Shivendra D. Shukla

    The merger of the two institutes has more negatives than positives. It is more destructive than constructive to the progress of fundamental scientific discoveries related to alcohol effects on organs other than CNS. Some of the important research being conducted to address the pharmacological and pathological effects of ethanol on liver, colon, pancreas, heart, vasculature, kidney, fetus, and other non-brain organs will be greatly hampered. The merger will bring elimination of these vital areas of research in alcohol field. The merged institute will be more focused onto drug & addiction research and will essentially abolish an area of research that has important health problems associated with alcohol abuse. NIAAA has served very well towards this mission and should be allowed to continue as a separate institute in the future.

    Shivendra D. Shukla, PhD
    Margaret Proctor Mulligan Professor
    Department of Medical Pharmacology & Physiology
    University of Missouri School of Medicine
    Columbia, Missouri 65212

  • Min You

    I am a professor in the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology at University of Florida. My lab specializes in the effects of alcohol on the energy metabolism signaling pathway in liver cells. I have been fortunately funded by NIAAA with multiple R01s. I strongly support NIAAA’s mission, especially research on the health-related effects of alcohol.

    We have recently published a series of papers on alcohol regulations of the signal pathways in energy metabolism and in the development of fatty liver. We found that alcohol is a strong regulator in these signaling pathways. Therefore, alcohol, in our research, is very important in revealing metabolic signaling pathway. The importance of these studies is way beyond alcohol research, extends deep into the cellular energy metabolism. NIAAA has been doing an excellent job in supporting our research. I truly wish research funding for alcohol related research will not only continue, but expand.

    Min You, Ph.D.
    Professor, Dept Mol Pharm and Physiol
    Univ South Florida

  • Stephen B. Pruett

    I am a Professor and Department Head in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. I have been studying the effects of acute (binge) ethanol exposure on immunity and inflammation for many years and have been funded by NIAAA for that research. My concern with regard to the institute proposed is that it seems to almost ignore the many effects of binge drinking, which is numerically a much larger problem in the U.S. than alcohol dependence. It also seems designed to focus alcohol research toward neurological and behavioral areas. These are critical and clearly need to be included. However, one of the most striking features of alcohol and also of other drugs of abuse is that they affect multiple organ systems, and ameliorating these adverse effects will require continuing research. I would like to suggest that inclusion of the term “addiction” in the title of the Institute without including a term reflecting acute effects would change the course of research in drugs of abuse, even if this is not the intent. Therefore, I recommend including the term “abuse” in the title to indicate that study of broad effects that may not be associated with addiction will also be an important component of the Institute’s mission.

  • Jay Kolls

    I am writing that I do not submit the merger of NIAAA and NIDA for several reasons. Firstly the missions of the institutes are too divergent that reduces the upside potential of the proposed merger. Although there potential synergies in terms of addiction science, there are unique aspects of alcohol abuse, a legal substance in the US. Specifically the effect of alcohol on end organ physiology is clearly best studied by a standalone NIAAA. Furthermore this important aspect of alcohol abuse will not be served by NIDA/NIAAA merger.

    It is important to note that patients that suffer from alcohol abuse already represent a disenfranchised patient population that is often medically underserved. These patients are often denied treatment for chronic HCV infection as well as other medical procedures. Merger of NIAAA will clearly contribute to this health care disparity. It is vital that we have a rigorous and impactful research program that addresses mechanism of alcohol induce organ injury.

  • Jacqueline Bouchard

    I am a recent PhD graduate in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine. Just recently we have integrated acute alcohol exposure into our research involving allergic asthma. This new research has elucidated acute alcohol intake as a risk factor for triggering asthma exacerbations. We are applying to NIAAA for funding to continue to investigate the mechanisms of alcohol-triggered asthma, and obtaining these grants will be crucial for the progression of our understandings of alcohol-asthma interactions and changing public awareness on alcohol as an asthma trigger. Our studies show very distinct exacerbations that are completely separate from chronic alcohol or addiction-related effects on airway responses. I would highly recommend for Alcohol to remain a premier focus of the new institute. In light of our recent studies, there are still many very basic biological interactions between alcohol and common diseases that have yet to be unearthed and that will require governmental support. Thank you for your consideration.

  • Jiashin Wu

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I heard that NIH is thinking about merging NIAAA and NIDA into a single institute. I believe this is a very bad idea. NIAAA should remain independent. Alcohol is undeniablely a very important part of the life of Americans and people all over the world. Unlike other foods and drinks, alcohol has a much more profound inferences on people’s life, health, and shapes this society. Alcohol brings us joy, and also costs the society dearly when it is abused. Even when consumed responsively, long term consumption of alcohol also have significant health implications. Merging NIAAA and NIDA will undoubtedly reduce the emphasis and efforts on the research on the health effects of alcohol. At the end, it will cost American society and people more and negatively affect the health of people if NIAAA and NIDA are merged.
    Alcohol has been with us in the entire history of human civilization. It is unrealistic to eliminate or ignore this part of human life and history. The only choice we have is to face it and study it with the same enthusiasm and efforts as studying human health and civilization. Therefore, NIAAA must remain independent.

    Sincerely,

    Jiashin Wu, Ph.D.
    University of South Florida

  • Ellen Burnham

    I am an Associate Professor in the Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine at the University of Colorado. I am an intensivist, and would conservatively estimate that 40% of our ICU patients have unhealthy alcohol use as a comorbidity; this proportion is represenative of urban hosptials nationwide. These patients’ primary reason for admission to the ICU is typically pulmonary illness, specifically, pneumonia. With the help of the NIAAA, our group has established an infrastructure to study the effects of alcohol on pulmonary diseases in human subjects with a goal of developing novel prophylactic and therapeutic modalities for these patients. Without continued support of our translational endeavors, progress in improving outcomes in these critically ill patients will likely stall driving up an already significant financial burden. We are the only group that I know of in the US who has access to subjects where we can perform investigations such as these, and have supported the efforts of external collaborators nationwide with our resource. I strongly believe that continued support of the new institute for our alcohol-lung endeavors will lead to better therapies in this population.

  • Liz Kovacs

    As Director of Loyola University Chicago’s Alcohol Research Program, I have major concerns with the merger of NIDA and NIAAA into an Institute focusing primarily on addiction and addictive behavior. Many of my colleagues and I, working in Loyola’s Burn and Shock Trauma Institute and elsewhere, study the tissue and organ damage seen after binge drinkers sustain traumatic injury. Alcohol is clearly a risk factor for causing injury and about 50% of the adult trauma patients who are admitted to the hospital consumed alcohol prior to sustaining their injuries. Evidence from our Emergency Department reveals that only 13% of the patients with alcohol on board at the time of injury show signs of alcohol dependence. Most are binge drinkers. This drinking pattern parallels the January 2012 CDC report revealing the marked prevalence of binge drinkers in the population including older Americans. We and others found that relative to their counterparts who do not drink, many of the burn trauma patients who entered the hospital with a positive blood alcohol content (BAC) suffer prolonged hospitalization and delayed recovery, because of excessive end organ tissue damage, caused by the combined insult of alcohol exposure and traumatic injury. Because of the limited number of trauma patients who are dependent drinkers (and high number who are binge drinkers), I strongly suggest that alcohol consumption and end-organ injury should remain a focus of the new Institute.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Liz