Gregory Herek has found himself on the front lines of the culture wars.
And not by choice.
Herek, a psychology professor who specializes in research on sexual prejudice, made news headlines last week when Congress asked the National Institutes of Health to justify its support of more than 160 academic studies that involve sexual behavior, HIV transmission, or alcohol and drug use.
Herek, who has received money from the NIH, found himself on that list. He's the only UC Davis faculty member on it.
"The intent is to intimidate," said Herek, who has conducted three national surveys on American attitudes toward people with HIV/AIDS. "This is an example of collaboration between a radical right-wing group and their supporters in Congress."
The controversy has its origins in the Traditional Values Coalition, which drafted the list and supplied it to members of Congress. Some lawmakers subsequently requested that the NIH explain the medical benefits hoped to be derived from the studies in question. The NIH is currently telephoning the researchers to review the projects. Herek has not yet been contacted.
The list of studies includes research on populations at increased risk of acquiring the virus that causes AIDS, including gay men and prostitutes.
For now, lawmakers have not threatened to withdraw federal funds from the studies.
Herek, who received his doctorate in social psychology from UC Davis in 1983, says his research project, "HIV/AIDS Related Stigma," offers a clear public health benefit. "The stigma attached to AIDS is now recognized worldwide a major impediment to stopping the epidemic. It deters people from getting tested for HIV and even from practicing safe sex."
Herek acknowledges the public role that Congress plays in minding the taxpayers' pocketbook. And he says private interest groups are free under the First Amendment to lobby and advise Congress on their points of view. "It's reasonable for Congress to set research priorities," he said.
But he grows concerned when politicians in effect replace scientists in the peer review process. The "rigorous scientific" grant application process at NIH is a better approach for deciding what projects to fund than an overtly politicized process.
"Over the years, Congress has sometimes shown a willingness to overrule the NIH," said Herek, who noted that it takes a couple months to write these grants. "By no means is this an easy review process -- it is extremely thorough, and the scientific standards are very high."
Herek explained that the initial NIH review process ranks all the proposals, and then a follow-up process involves the selection of proposals for grants.
From stem cell research to genetic engineering and recombinant DNA technology, questions involving the public funding of research are not new.
Last July the U.S. House of Representatives came within two votes of pulling money from four research projects related to sexual behavior, studies that some House members criticized as wasteful and improper. Then, on Oct. 2 at a Congressional oversight hearing, several House members again objected to some NIH studies and criticized some research projects in those areas as an apparent waste of taxpayer money.
Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director, told the Associated Press that many NIH grants were a "total abuse of taxpayer dollars " and that "millions and millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet over years on this HIV, AIDS scam and sham. We know what it takes to prevent getting the disease. It takes not engaging in risky sexual behaviors."
The coalition argues that prevention efforts should focus on abstinence among unmarried people and fidelity among married couples.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles has described the document as a "hit list" of scientists researching HIV/AIDS, human sexuality and risk-taking behaviors and labeled it "scientific McCarthyism." He also called for an investigation.
Herek noted, "Worldwide, AIDS is a heterosexually-transmitted disease. Yet for years now groups like the Traditional Values Coalition have been describing it as a purely homosexual problem."
Though Herek's preparing to submit another proposal to NIH this winter to study attitudes toward AIDS and HIV, he wonders about the outcome now. "When you see your name on such a list, you can't help but wonder if your future funding is going to be in jeopardy. And we hear that the staff at NIH is demoralized over this type of issue, too."
Herek suggests that the list was ineptly put together. Several of the researchers listed have been dead for a long time, and others included on the list do not even receive NIH funding.
"They appear to have been targeted simply because they've studied homosexuality and their findings don't support the Traditional Values Coalition's point of view," Herek said.
Named on the list are researchers from some of the most prestigious universities in the country, including Johns Hopkins University, Harvard and several UC branches -- 16 from UC San Francisco (more than at any other institution), nine from UCLA, two from UC San Diego, and one from UC Berkeley.
Herek says he's in the last year of his five-year NIH grant, which has paid for his salary and some of his research during that period. In the past, he also has received NIH funding to study AIDS education and the mental health consequences of hate crimes.