Contact Congress

Through our partnership with the National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research (NAEVR), U.S.-based ARVO members can contact their Senators and Representatives. 

In June, the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee released a NIH Reform Report providing recommendations to structurally change and reform the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Much of the report focuses on transparency and accountability, but the most significant proposal is a complete restructuring of the existing institutes at NIH from 27 Institutes and Centers down to 15. As part of this restructuring, the recommendation includes a consolidation of the National Eye Institute (NEI) with the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), into a broader “National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research.”

In addition to this proposal being included in the E&C report, the House Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee included the consolidation recommendations in their FY25 appropriations bill which was passed through markup and awaits consideration of the full Committee. It's unclear at this time if the House will be able to advance this beyond the subcommittee.

We are asking our U.S. based ARVO members to take action today by submitting a letter to your Congressional offices and the House E&C Committee by clicking "Take Action" to fill out the template form or using the template letter below. 

Autogenerated letter

Dear [Congressperson],

I am writing to respond to the recommendations outlined in the Energy and Commerce Committee Report and the inclusion of the consolidation of Institutes in the House Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. Specifically, I wish to advocate against the proposal to consolidate the National Eye Institute (NEI) into a broader institute focused on neuroscience and brain research.

Vision research stands as a cornerstone of medical science. Vision research is marked by significant contributions extending well beyond neuroscience and brain research. Innovations in gene therapy, stem cell technologies, artificial intelligence applications in diagnostics, advanced imaging techniques such as OCT and adaptive optics, and pioneering work in regenerative medicine exemplify the breadth and depth of advancements driven by vision scientists. These achievements highlight some of the unique complexities and opportunities within the field of vision science that warrant sustained and dedicated support.

In its current form as a distinct institute within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the NEI plays a crucial role in advancing our understanding of ocular biology, pathology, and therapeutic interventions. By focusing specifically on the unique challenges presented by vision disorders—including age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, inherited retinal diseases, and more—the NEI ensures that specialized research efforts and resources are optimally directed toward addressing critical health issues affecting millions worldwide. The fact is, the incidence of many of these vision-related diseases is projected to double over the next 25 years and 50% of the global population is expected to be myopic by 2030. This demographic trend underscores the urgent need to maintain NEI as a dedicated institute with a focus on effectively addressing the impending public health challenges associated with vision loss and vision impairment.

Another crucial consideration is that many eye diseases, such as retinal vascular disorders, uveitis, corneal injuries and degenerations, and conditions affecting the ocular adnexae (like eye muscle issues, eyelid disorders, and dry eye syndromes), do not involve the central nervous system (CNS) or the peripheral nervous system (PNS). This makes them incompatible with being grouped alongside neurological diseases. This further underscores the incompatibility of consolidating the National Eye Institute with a broader Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research, as it would blur the distinct focus needed for advancing vision research and treatment.

Furthermore, public perception consistently underscores the critical importance of vision. Studies show that individuals rate loss of vision as one of their greatest health fears, and ranked vision loss as having more impact on their life and independence than loss of hearing, memory, or amputation, underscoring the imperative to maintain vision research as a dedicated institute within NIH to address public health concerns effectively.

Consolidating NEI into a broader Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research as proposed risks diluting this specialized focus and would likely diminish the dedicated resources currently supporting vision research. The eye serves as an invaluable medical model, offering insights into both local ocular pathology and systemic health implications, thereby enhancing our understanding of broader health issues. Beyond its role as a conduit to the brain via the optic nerve, the eye presents intricate physiological and pathological processes distinct from the central and peripheral nervous system. Vision researchers have made profound strides in understanding and treating many diverse conditions. Such advancements not only improve patient outcomes but also contribute to broader insights into neurodegenerative disorders, vascular diseases, and systemic health implications.

In addition to the concerns with the consolidation of the NEI, I believe some consistency in leadership is important. While I recognize the value of promoting fresh perspectives, I am concerned about the limitations of the proposed term limit requirements for directors of NIH institutes. A five-year term with an option for a second term may not provide adequate stability and continuity in leadership, essential for sustaining long-term research initiatives and fostering impactful scientific discoveries. Ensuring effective leadership at NIH institutes requires a balance between innovation and institutional knowledge, promoting long-term strategies that foster scientific excellence and public health impact. Term limits may be one solution, but I encourage Congress to consider the terms and to look at other ways to foster these fresh perspectives.

Finally, I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee's emphasis on transparency and accountability within NIH institutes. Transparency and accountability are important for maintaining public trust, ensuring efficient resource allocation, and aligning research priorities with societal health needs. Mechanisms for reporting to Congress and external stakeholders can be valuable to maintain oversight and facilitate informed decision-making.

While supporting the principles of transparency and accountability, I urge Congress to engage in thorough consultations with NIH leadership, research institutions, individual scientists, clinicians, patients, and advocacy groups. Public hearings before moving forward with any significant NIH reforms will enable informed decision-making that respects the expertise and diverse perspectives necessary to shape NIH policies that garner broad bipartisan support.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge Congress to preserve NEI as an independent institute within NIH, recognizing its pivotal role in advancing vision research and its broader implications for medical science. Thank you for considering these perspectives and for your continued dedication to advancing scientific inquiry and public health through robust NIH funding and governance.  

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

[Your digital signature and information]

If you receive an error message that the letter is too long, please copy and paste the revised text below in the form:

I am writing to oppose the proposal to consolidate the National Eye Institute (NEI) into a larger institute focused on neuroscience and brain research, as outlined in the E&C Committee Report and the House LHHS Appropriations Bill.

Vision research is a vital part of medical science, with unique advancements such as gene therapy, stem cell technologies, and advanced imaging techniques. The NEI, as a standalone entity within the NIH, plays a critical role in addressing vision-specific disorders like age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. These conditions are expected to increase significantly in the coming decades, highlighting the need for dedicated support.

Many eye diseases do not involve the central or peripheral nervous systems, making their study distinct from broader neurological research. Integrating NEI into a neuroscience-focused institute would undermine its specialized focus and the resources needed to tackle vision-specific challenges effectively.

Moreover, public concern about vision loss underscores the need for dedicated vision research. Studies show that vision loss is among the greatest health fears, affecting life and independence more than other conditions.

I also express concern about the proposed term limits for NIH institute directors, which may disrupt continuity and hinder long-term research. Stability in leadership is essential for maintaining impactful scientific progress.

Finally, while supporting transparency and accountability within NIH, I urge Congress to conduct thorough consultations with stakeholders before implementing significant reforms. Preserving NEI as an independent institute is crucial for advancing vision research and addressing public health challenges effectively. Thank you for considering this perspective.