The U.S. House of Representatives accepted a budget amendment proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that would bar funding for National Institutes on Health (NIH) approved studies on HIV/AIDS and alcohol and other drug use among sex workers, Inside Higher Ed reported July 28.

Issa moved to block $5 million allocated for the three studies, which focus on prostitutes in Asia and alcoholics in Russia. “It is my mission to hold the federal government accountable for its spending and the NIH is no exception, especially during the current economic crisis,” Issa said. “These studies are clearly not high priorities for U.S. citizens, suffering from disease here at home, who could benefit from the $5 million the NIH plans to spend on foreign alcoholics and prostitutes. We need to get the NIH’s priorities in line with those of the American people.”

The ban was approved on a “voice vote” on the House floor, to the dismay of researchers who decried the political interference into NIH’s operations.

“NIH’s peer-review system is the envy of the world because it ensures only the highest quality science is supported through federal funding,” said Mark O. Lively, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “Any short-term compromise of the peer-review process, through Congressional micromanagement of the grant-making process, is a grave threat to biomedical research, the quality of U.S. science, and the health of our fellow citizens.”

Jeffrey Samet of the Boston University Medical Center, lead investigator of one of the studies targeted by Issa, said his research on HIV interventions targeting Russian alcoholics in inpatient treatment programs is designed to improve safe-sex practices in the U.S. as well as overseas. He called Issa’s campaign against the project “a public bludgeoning.”

“The fact that we might have wasted an enormous amount of time, energy and money from the first three years of this grant is the trivial part of it,” said Samet. “The much bigger issue is what’s Congress doing mucking around with this elaborate [peer review] process they put in place.”