The NIDA / NIAAA Merger is OFF!!

November 16, 2012

Holy Moly! by way of the CPDD blog an announcement from NIH Director Collins

After rigorous review and extensive consultation with stakeholders, I have concluded that it is more appropriate for NIH to pursue functional integration, rather than major structural reorganization, to advance substance use, abuse, and addiction-related research. To that end, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) will retain their institutional identities, while strengthening their ongoing efforts to work more closely with each other and with related research programs at other institutes and centers.

And that’s all she wrote, folks. Like I’ve always said, if you can’t merge these two ICs then there is no point in any talk about merging any existing ICs.

For some idea of what the “functional integration” means, see this site.

Background reading:

    The Merger of NIDA and NIAAA: Here We Go!
    Grrrrrrrrr. CPDD and RSoA annoyance
    Your academic society is working for (or against?) you under the NIH Grant waterline
    The Gender Smog We Breathe: The NIH Edition
    NIH Director Collins moves forward with NIAAA/NIDA merger
    Is NIAAA a better steward of NIH grant monies than is NIDA?
    Update on the NIAAA/NIDA Merger
    Beverage industry is not enthusiastic about merging NIAAA with NIDA
    The NIDA/NIAAA merger and the newly proposed NIH Center for Translational Research.

No Responses Yet to “The NIDA / NIAAA Merger is OFF!!”

  1. pinus Says:

    is this the right spot to say ‘I told you so’ to all the people who have been pissing and moaning for the last year?


  2. drugmonkey Says:

    Yes. Yes it is. I’ll join you.


  3. DJMH Says:

    Who is a “stakeholder” in NIH? Grantees? The taxpaying public? BevMo?


  4. drugmonkey Says:

    all of the above. plus alcohol-disorder academic societies, care facilities/provider groups, specific philanthropies directed at different aspects of alcohol use disorders, etc…


  5. becca Says:

    Wow, and all it took was 30k emails and a resignation of the CIA.


  6. zb Says:

    Can’t imagine that the “tax-paying public” were very significant stakeholders in this decision making (except through their dual role as care providers/philanthropies/etc.)


  7. DrugMonkey Says:

    They were free to respond to the RFI and lobby the hell out of their CongressCritters…


  8. Juniper Shoemaker Says:

    The alcoholic beverage industry must be charmingly persuasive.


  9. pinus Says:

    next topic: New NIAAA director?


  10. DrugMonkey Says:

    Hahhaha, let the dust settle man!


  11. whimple Says:

    I thought they had to get rid of one Institute to make room for that zippy new translational thing?


  12. Dave Says:

    to make room for that zippy new translational thing?

    Hopefully that is next on the chopping block.


  13. drugmonkey Says:

    They shuttered NCRR whimple, where were you?


  14. whimple Says:

    Oh, is that gone?


  15. DrugMonkey Says:



  16. Beaker Says:

    Pathetic. All drugs that affect accumbensVTA should be under the same institute. Delaying or eliminating the merger reeks of old boys protecting their shrinking turf.


  17. neuropolarbear Says:

    Maybe Francis Collins used the threat of integration to get the Beverage Industry to secretly donate truckloads of hush money to the NIAAA in order to increase the payline. That’s how things work in my fantasies, anyway.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: