Inside Behavior Analysis
Volume 2 | 2010 | Number 2
Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
By Thomas S. Critchfield
Background
The Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS) “is a dues-supported coalition of member organizations, academic affiliates (including university departments and regional psychological associations), and corporate affiliates. We represent the interests of scientists who conduct research in the mind, brain, and behavior sciences, focusing our efforts on advocacy, education, and the communication of information to scientists” (Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2010). Member associations are:
- American Educational Research Association
- American Psychological Association
- Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
- Association for Behavior Analysis International
- Behavior Genetics Association
- Cognitive Science Society
- Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- International Society for Developmental Psychobiology
- Massachusetts Neuropsychological Society
- National Academy of Neuropsychology
- Psychonomic Society
- Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology
- Society for Computers in Psychology
- Society of Experimental Social Psychology
- Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
- Society for Judgment and Decision Making
- Society for Mathematical Psychology
- Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology
- Society for Personality Assessment
- Society for Personality and Social Psychology
- Society for Psychophysiological Research
- Society for Research in Psychopathology
Update on FABBS
The FABBS name is new, along with the name of its affiliated charitable [501(c)(3)] body, the Foundation for Advancement of Behavioral and Brain Sciences (hereafter referred to as the "Foundation"). FABBS has been heavily involved in the last year with informing key legislators and policy makers about the value and needs of the behavioral and social sciences. (Please note here that "behavioral" is used in the most generic way, to distinguish it from "wet" investigations, e.g., involving imaging, genetics, etc.; FABBS does not typically work on behalf of the peculiar emphases of its member organizations.) As with all legislative advocacy, effectiveness is hard to measure, but FABBS seems to be good at getting the ear of influential people. FABBS also is working with publishers to try to establish a new journal about the intersection of science and policy. The Foundation’s mission is to communicate to and educate the public about research in the behavioral and social sciences. Noteworthy initiatives include:
- Publication of a book, Psychology in the Real World, which includes essays on how behavioral and social research is relevant to important human problems. The book's topics are keyed to typical topics in introductory psychology courses; students (i.e., future voters) can be reached if this publication is adopted for college and high-school classroom use.
- Attempt to establish an "X Prize" (www.xprize.org) in psychology. Discussions about this are ongoing and no specific focus has been determined for any prize that might be established.
- Efforts to make FABBS part of a large scale Science Festival that will take place in Washington, DC in September, 2010.
New About Science Funding
What follows, here and below, is digested from a series of informational presentations by representatives of various research-funding agencies.
Good news about general funding levels. The best news regarding research funding is that budgets of the primary agencies, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), are expected to increase during 2010 and 2011, despite a poor economy. Estimates are for the NIH budget to increase by 1% to 3% annually, and for the NSF budget to increase somewhat more. Mission-oriented agencies that are tied to current government priorities, such as the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Homeland Security, also expect to see increases.
Modestly good news about basic science funding. Because of a sense that basic research has been ignored recently, NIH is launching a new initiative designed to place renewed emphasis on basic science. This is called the Basic Behavioral and Social Science opportunity Network (OPPNET). OPPNET calls for $120 million to be directed, over the next 5 years, into basic research. For 2010, the funding is $10 million in stimulus money; thereafter regular NIH funds will be applied with the annual amount growing to $30 million for 2012–2014.
The first Forwarding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs, i.e., call for proposals) were scheduled for distribution in December 2009. Details may be found at oppnet.nih.gov.
There are two reasons why this is only modestly good news. First, the initiative cuts across all of NIH's many institutes, meaning that initially there might be enough money for one or two new grants per institute at most. Second, the extent to which basic behavior analysis researchers can profit from this initiative is constrained by general trends in NIH funding priorities.
Discouraging news about research funding priorities. Some of the agencies that were represented at the FABBS meeting are thoroughly mission-driven (e.g., Office of Naval Research, Department of Homeland Security) and offer few initiatives that are likely to intersect with the current interests of ABAI members. This is not to say that behavior analytic expertise could not advance existing missions, only that there are few existing behavior analytic research programs that would be well suited to this.
The primary funding sources of interest to ABAI members (NIH, NSF) are constrained by priorities established by the Obama administration, which has placed primary emphasis on these four areas: economic growth, climate change, national security, and biomedical and information-technology advances. Again, while it is conceivable that behavior analytic research could address these topics, few existing behavior analytic research programs are well suited to this.
It should be noted as well that new leaders have recently been appointed for NIH and for NSF's Social/Behavioral/Economic Sciences Division. In both cases, leadership appears to especially value projects that are interdisciplinary and involve multiple research teams, typically at multiple locations. Such an emphasis does not favor basic or applied behavioral research as it has been conducted traditionally.
Observations and Recommendations
I left the meeting with these thoughts:
How skilled is the typical behavior analyst in the processes of seeking extramural funding? Competition for limited extramural dollars is increasingly acute. There is no indication that this will get significantly better in the foreseeable future. To compete for research dollars, behavior analysts will have to be very good at requesting them, and to obtain and keep the most prominent academic jobs, behavior analysts will need to have extramural funding.
A related question concerns the extent to which behavior analysts are equipped to participate in an interdisciplinary world. Do we know how to speak clearly to non-behaviorists without letting jargon get in the way? Do we understand the kinds of large-scale research designs that may be needed? Do we know enough about biology, neuroscience, economics, and so on to have credibility as interdisciplinary collaborators? I worry that behavior analysis is increasingly in danger of being excluded from the funding game. The Science Board might study this issue by polling doctoral programs to determine the extent to which students are exposed to the relevant scientific fields and to the variety of research approaches that interdisciplinary collaborators might wish to employ.
What can ABAI and the Science Board do to help people who are no longer students? The Science Board should explore mechanisms for retraining scholars to prepare them for the current realities of the extramural funding game. A one-time gesture was made when ABAI sponsored a conference on grantsmanship some years back. An ongoing series of events might be needed. Not much has happened since then.
One approach might be to establish workshops during the preconvention period. These could be sponsored in such a way that they would be offered at no cost to participants—the field benefits if these individuals obtain extramural funding—and admission might be offered by application only (limited seating to allow for an intensive experience). Workshops could have a tutorial flavor and could focus on both disciplines of potential collaborative value (e.g., neuroscience) and methods that have not been a focus in most behavior analysis training (e.g., multivariate analysis).
Can ABAI increase its influence within FABBS by recruiting the participation of like-minded groups? Inter-group hostility does not seem to exist within FABBS, but the reality is that "behavioral" science is promoted in the most generic form (i.e., "behavioral" essentially means not chemistry, biology, genetics, etc.). Should it ever become necessary to form alliances within FABBS to influence the FABBS agenda, it is not clear who the allies might be. ABAI could improve upon the status quo by encouraging groups with shared scientific interests to become FABBS members. Examples include Society for Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Association for Positive Behavioral Support, Comparative Cognition Society, Division 25 of APA, Division 28 of APA, and possibly some of the larger domestic regional affiliates of ABAI.
Importantly, a larger FABBS benefits ABAI directly, too, because more members equal more resources to use in advocating for science. The ABAI Council has agreed to co-author a letter from the Science Board to relevant groups explaining the importance of FABBS, asking that they consider joining.
References
Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (2006). Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://www.thefederationonline.org/.