
DATE: June 20, 1996

TO:   Dr. Phillip Chen, Associate Director for Intramural Affairs

RE:   Support of JI Visa Extension

FROM: The NIH Fellows Committee

CC:   Dr. Michael Gottesman, Deputy Director of Intramural Research

The NIH Fellows Committee represents the NIH fellows community with regard to policy decisions that affect them. As such, the committee would like to express the views of NIH fellows regarding JI visas at the NIH. Our support of J1 visa extensions for visiting fellows at NIH reflects the opinion of Intramural fellows who, at the committee's request, expressed their opinion on the current three year J1 visa policy. The individual replies are attached.

The committee supports the Administration's view that the IRTA and Visiting Fellowship are parallel training programs. Fellows support the recent modification of the IRTA training program to five years. The IRTA program allows the appropriate time required for a young scientist to establish themselves in the scientific community and to compete for independent funding. The same training is essential for visiting fellows. As with the two year initial IRTA invitation with yearly renewable contracts, we would like to stress that scientific merit be a criterion for the J1 extension.

Specifically the committee believes that extension to the JI visa should be available for the following reasons:

The investment of time and taxpayer dollar is not realized in three years. Full benefits of training are not obtained by the laboratory because a disproportionate amount of time and funding is invested in the basic training without allowing additional time for new discovery. Extension would allow both the laboratory and trainee to build on initial observations to generate significant results.

Three years is simply not enough time to be competitive in the life sciences. During the initial years a trainee establishes a field of investigation, becomes fluent in the history of the field, masters techniques and generates preliminary data. Often the first publication of an investigation is during the second or third year. Most importantly, this is the time where the scientist is intimately involved with the investigation, and most intuitive at designing experiments to ask the most interesting and productive questions. The fourth and fifth year therefore are the most productive in terms of new discoveries and publications.

The limited training will discourage the World's brightest scientists from choosing NIH. The NIH reputation as the preeminent scientific community is due to the contributions of both US and foreign scientists. NIH scientists are lauded for long term, high riskinvestigations that make significant contributions to their field of investigation. Premier scientific inquiry takes time. The JI visa should provide visiting fellows adequate time to realize the product of their investigations. The three year limit will force foreign fellows to train in facilities abroad that do not have restrictive time requirements. A rich resource of scientific intellect will be lost.

The committee appreciates the opportunity to express our support of the NIH proposal to extend the JI visa. We speak for the fellows who are currently at the end of their initial JI and respectfully request a timely resolution to the current JI crisis. Significant time, money and labor have been invested by NIH scientists, administration and visiting fellows. NIH would surely loose if they left our community without finishing their training.

We would be happy to enter into further discussions with the Administration

NIH Fellows Committee

Copies of the many thoughtful responses from fellows were attached to this letter.

The following memo from Dr. Gottesman was forwarded to the Fellows Committee by Dr. Rechler, chair of the "Peer Review Committee" in the Office of the Director.

July 10, 1996


TO:       Scientific Directors

FROM:     Deputy Director for Intramural Research, OD

SUBJECT:  J-1 Visa Extensions for Fourth and Fifth Years

I am happy to report that the USIA has agreed to extend J-1 visas for qualified NIH scientists for up to two years beyond the initial 3-year period. While some details remain to be clarified, the first four cases submitted have already been approved by USIA within the 3-5 day time-frame that they have promised.

CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION

As outlined in the Federal Register of June 10, 1996 and clarified by Sally Lawrence (Chief, Program Designation Branch, Exchange Visitor Program Services, USIA; see attached letter), USIA may extend, upon request, the three year duration of J-1 visas when "exceptional or unusual circumstances" make the extension necessary "to complete a specific project or research activity".

Direct financial support of the research scholar by United States government or foreign government funds per se would qualify as an "exceptional or unusual circumstance" because such extension is viewed by USIA as a "true exchange".

The extension is designed to enable the fellows "to continue the research they began when they entered the United States", and not to initiate a new program.

NIH REVIEW PROCEDURES

Each case for which a fourth or fifth year is requested will be evaluated by the Peer Review Committee in the Office of Intramural Research (OIR). It should be emphasized that extension of selected J-1 visa candidates for five years is by exception. Only a small percentage of fellows on J-1 visas remain at NIH for longer than 3 years. Only scientists who meet the above criteria and who are considered by their Laboratory/Branch Chiefs and Scientific Director to have superior scientific potential, judged in part by their productivity, should be proposed to the Peer Review Committee for consideration of extension.

The following additional factors will be considered by the Peer Review Committee in evaluating the qualifications of the candidate and determining whether J-1 extension should be requested from USIA:

1) Evidence that the program designed for the fellow provides suitable training, that the additional training is important for the fellow's scientific development, and that the proposed plan for the extension would provide this training. For example, additional time might be warranted because of the sophisticated nature of the experiments. This justification is of paramount importance as the rationale for the J-1 visa is for training rather than provision of service.

2) A statement describing the career goals of the individual and the importance of additional training in attaining these goals. For example, the vast majority of NIH scientists on J-1 visas will return to their home country, as this is required for individuals who receive U.S. Government or foreign government funding under the conditions of the J-1 Exchange Visitor program. A letter from the home country requesting additional training to enhance the individual's contribution to biomedical research in his home country would be considered a strong justification for extension.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Following approval by the Scientific Director, requests for J-1 extensions should be sent to the Peer Review Committee [Dr. Chen's office, Bldg 1--Rm 140, to the attention of Dr. Rechler]. Cases will be evaluated promptly by the Committee, forwarded to USIA for approval, and then processed by the International Services Branch, Fogarty International Center. Although USIA promises to approve these extensions within five days, requests must be received no later than 120 days prior to the expiraton date of the exchange visitor's IAP 66.

REMAINING QUESTION

Some scientists whose J-1 visas were about to expire during the transitional period between March 19, 1996 (when the duration of J-1 visas became limited to 3 years rather than 5 years) and June 10, 1996 were granted 6-month "terminal" extensions by NIH to prevent them from falling out of immigration status while NIH's request for a new five year program was pending at USIA. The NIH has asked USIA to view these extensions as interim extensions. For scientists who were granted such a six-month extension after March 19, 1996 but who would have been recommended for a longer extension if such a program had been available, we suggest that a request to extend their J-1 visa for a total of one to two years, as appropriate, be submitted to the Peer Review Committee for review. If approved by the Committee, the NIH will strongly urge the USIA to approve further extension for these individuals. We have no assurance, however, that USIA will agree with this request.

Questions can be addressed to Dr. Matthew Rechler, Chairman, Peer Review Committee (mrechler@helix.nih.gov), Dr. Philip Chen (6-3561) or Sylvia Funk (6-6166).

Michael M. Gottesman, M.D.

_______________________________________________

Dr. Rechler adds this additional piece of advice: "The principal decisions as to eligibility and suitability for extension rests with the lab/branch chiefs and scientific directors. If they do the hard part in the selection process, the "Committee" will only ensure that a uniform standard is being applied."

Return to InfoBank: Information for international fellows

Suggestions | 14 Jan 2003