Establishing the U.S. Aging Research Enterprise: Founding of the National Institute on Aging

There is much to celebrate this year as the National Institute of Aging (NIA) marks its 50-year milestone of ensuring that aging research is uplifted and prioritized. Founded in 1974, NIA is known for its work in supporting and funding research on the broad range of subjects involved in the human experience of aging. NIA’s support of researchers hailing from all scientific disciplines, studying aging across the life course, has contributed to improved health outcomes for us all as we age. Based on its progress over its first five decades, we are optimistic about what is to come as NIA leads the aging research enterprise over the next 50 years.

Although the NIA of today is among the top funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes, its establishment five decades ago was anything but certain. The fortitude of many individuals and organizations in advancing the idea of an institute dedicated to aging research has reaped benefits to the field that few could have imagined.

The NIA, founded in 1974, and its dedicated staff, are to be applauded for 50 years of supporting and conducting genetic, biological, clinical, behavioral, social, and economic research on aging; fostering the development of research and clinician scientists in aging; providing a plethora of research resources; and disseminating information about aging and advances in research to the public, health care professionals, and the scientific community (NIA Strategic Directions 2020-2025, 2022). The opportunities for research grants, collaboration with other Institutes within NIH, and empowering scientists and educators have proven fruitful for everyone across the life course. As they have since its founding, Gerontological Society of America (GSA) members continue to advance this research into the field of aging.

The NIA, founded in 1974, and its dedicated staff, are to be applauded for 50 years of supporting and conducting genetic, biological, clinical, behavioral, social, and economic research on aging; fostering the development of research and clinician scientists in aging; providing a plethora of research resources; and disseminating information about aging and advances in research to the public, health care professionals, and the scientific community… As they have since its founding, Gerontological Society of America (GSA) members continue to advance this research into the field of aging.

Envisioning an Institute Dedicated to Aging Research

Similar to the national tumult of today, the years leading up to the formation of the NIA featured social unrest, political turmoil, and international crisis. And as is the case today, these events provided an opportunity for advocates and experts to champion change for the better.

Numerous major legislative actions in the 1960s, including establishment of Medicare & Medicaid and passage of the Older Americans Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act improved the lives of aging individuals and their families. The amount of work that went into establishing these programs and their agencies, along with the federal funding to stand up and sustain them, was indicative of the importance that policy makers saw in supporting aging and older people. These programs, along with the 1935 passage of the Social Security Act, served then and even now as key components that have and continue to benefit a vast majority of Americans.

As the spotlight continued to shine on these programs and the support they offered, many academics, scientists, practitioners, and researchers began to see the need for a more robust, formal institutional space for the study of aging across the life course. In 1968, 23 years after GSA’s founding, the Society’s leadership pushed forward with advocacy to make this happen.

As noted in the minutes of a GSA Council Meeting early on in 1968, there were only a few groups, namely, the American Geriatrics Society and GSA, planting the seeds that would soon sprout and bloom through their hard work, countless meetings, hundreds of telephone calls, much negotiation and advocacy, and endless hope that there would one day be an institute based on the study of aging. The 1974 meeting minutes also note that GSA, “maintained a proper role consistent with its function as a scientific association” in its advocacy for NIA (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council and Members of the Corporation of the Gerontological Society, 1974, p.455).

A major step in GSA’s advocacy for establishment of the NIA began in 1968, when then GSA Board President Bernice Neugarten, PhD, FGSA, a social psychologist from the University of Chicago, appointed GSA member Robert Binstock, PhD, FGSA, as chair of the Public Policy Committee (PPC). Not only was this a major steppingstone for the beginning of GSA’s involvement in helping establish NIA, but it was also the start of GSA’s formal work in shaping evidence-based public policy with input of its members, which continues today.

Binstock, a political scientist from Brandeis University who later served as GSA Board President in 1976, notes in a 2010 article that part of the initial push to form an institute dedicated to the study and research of aging was “a long-standing frustration of biogerontologists with what they regarded as inadequate grant support for their research.”. That frustration materialized in 1968, when a professor from the University of Southern California and GSA member Bernard Strehler, PhD, made the initial pitch to pen a congressional bill, calling for an NIH institute “to promote intensive coordinated research on the biological origins of aging,” according to political scientist Betty Lockett, who in 1983, wrote “Aging, Politics, and Research: Setting the Federal Agenda for Research on Aging.” The bill included a 5-year research plan dedicated to aging, according to Binstock.

During GSA’s Annual Meeting in 1968, President-elect Dr. F. Marott Sinex reported on activities of the PPC, noting “members of the committee have been in correspondence and met during this convention” (Minutes of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Council of the Gerontological Society and Members of the Corporation, 1968). In his 2010 piece, Binstock recalls that, during the meeting, Strehler sought formal endorsement of the bill from GSA, which evoked a response from Binstock and Neugarten that the bill needed to be more inclusive of medical, behavioral, and social sciences. Strehler agreed to a bill with broader language, which would lead to Binstock and Sinex revising the draft bill. Binstock, in his article, notes that the encompassing disciplines studying aging made their way to the final bill passed by Congress and ultimately signed by the President of the United States in the years ahead.

Seeing that the first iteration of the young piece of future legislation was complete in the members’ minds, Binstock notes that he and Sinex then began working in late 1968 and 1969 to amend the bill, making it broader in its scope, alongside William Oriol, who was serving as the Chief Staff Member for the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. “Sinex also spent many months tirelessly courting Florence Mahoney, a powerful Washington insider, for her assistance in gaining support from members of Congress for such a bill,” Binstock recalls in his article (Binstock, 2010). A political elite with many high-profile connections, Mahoney was a longtime effective advocate for expanded federal support for biomedical research, according to Binstock.

The two would dine often with Sinex, bringing in medical students from Boston to discuss the need for such an institute, along with the need for aging research. “Mahoney herself had long been an ardent supporter of research on aging, particularly hoping that effective interventions could be developed to slow or reverse aging,” according to Binstock’s article. Members of the PPC, still a relatively young committee, continued to engage with Mahoney and federal legislators into 1970. They collaborated with Oriol to persuade his boss, Senator Harrison Williams of New Jersey that the concept of the bill was worthwhile. A major victory was celebrated in 1971 when Senator Williams, then Chair of the Special Aging Committee in the U.S. Senate, introduced a bill titled, “The Research on Aging Act,” which would establish an institute on aging (Research on Aging Act, 1974; Williams et al., 1971).

According to the minutes from the October 1976 GSA meeting, the GSA Board of Directors later commended Oriol with a citation for his efforts (Gottesman, 1977). Binstock spearheaded this initiative, presenting the motion to recognize Oriol before the Board.

The same year Senator Williams introduced the Research on Aging Act, during the 1971 White House Conference on Aging, several recommendations were reported out regarding aging, including that “specific attention should be given to increasing the funds available for basic research and for operational research with a strong suggestion that a gerontological institute be established within the National Institutes of Health to provide the essential coordination of training and research activities” (Williams et al., 1971, p. 10).

The “Research and Demonstration” heading of the Conference Report included a recommendation that “a National Institute of Gerontology be established immediately to support and conduct research and training in the bio-medical and social-behavioral aspects of aging.”.. “The Institute should include study sections with equitable representation of the various areas involved in aging research and training … [with] a major increase in Federal funds for research, research training, and demonstration be appropriated and allocated,” the report relates (Williams et al., 1971, p. 47).

The Research on Aging Act, according to Binstock and Lockett, had strong backing from GSA and its members, and passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in 1972. Despite the momentum that had built among academicians, scientists, physicians, and other advocates, the bill was vetoed by President Richard Nixon, “at the urging of the NIH director and the Office of Management and Budget,” according to Binstock’s piece.

Advocacy Fortitude: The Continued Push For Aging Research

This did not deter GSA nor other supportive legislators and advocates. According to the minutes of the February 23, 1973, GSA Board Meeting, during the PPC Report, there was “discussion” regarding “HR 65, the [Rep. Paul] Rogers Bill, on establishing a National Institute on Aging.” In 1973, Stanley J. Brody, MSW, JD, was appointed the chair of the PPC. Brody offered a motion for GSA to send a letter supporting “the Rogers Bill,” which passed without any objection during the meeting (Coe, 1973, p. 262).

“There followed some discussion about the best procedure for the Society to influence the development on legislation on aging and what kinds of contact should be made,” according to the minutes of the February meeting (Coe, 1973). The minutes continue with, “At this point Dr. Sinex reported on the present state of affairs at the National Institutes of Health in terms of the reductions of funds for research and training. At present, although many applications for research in aging are of greatly improved quality, most will be approved but not funded. Furthermore, most training grants will be phased out while some will be terminated” (Coe, 1973, p. 262).

Dr. Sinex, according to the February 1973 meeting minutes, offered a glimmer of hope, pointing to the fact that the limited funding toward aging research, and perhaps the lack of political will for the president to sign legislation establishing NIA, “could be considered the short term effects of present Administration decisions … Further discussion continued about different interpretations of Administration strategies and some specifics regarding the phasing out of training programs…” (Coe, 1973, p. 262).

“Undaunted, over the next two years,” Binstock recalls in his 2010 article, “the PPC—led by GSA President Ethel Shanas, PhD, FGSA, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago—worked with Mahoney to urge Congress to approve the legislation once again.

To the advocates’ delight, several months following the February meeting, President Nixon signed Senate Bill 775—the Research on Aging Act—sponsored by Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, which saw favor in both chambers of Congress.

Almost There: Securing Funding

There was much to be celebrated during the GSA June 1974 Board meeting, convening just 7 days after the Research on Aging Act was signed into law. “President Shanas stated that many members of the Society—devoted to research on education and aging—had spent time on activities to make research and education possible,” according to the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes state that “enactment of this legislation was the culmination of a concerted effort on the part of many members of the two scientific organizations, the American Geriatrics Society and the Gerontological Society, and the mass organizations of older people.”

But just because the bill had been signed did not mean the work was finished.

“No appropriations are provided for the National Institute on Aging,” according to the 1974 meeting minutes, “but this matter is being reviewed and considered (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council & Members of the Corporation of the Gerontological Society, 1974, p. 455). Copies of the National Institute on Aging legislation were distributed to Council. The Gerontological Society and the American Geriatrics Society agreed to develop a policy statement on the role of NIA. Section leaders were named to the ad hoc committee to help with the statement, along with committee chairs.”

In October 1974, according to meeting minutes, President Shanas thanked “the members of the Society for their cooperation and prompt response to her request for help with the legislation around the National Institute of Aging” (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council & Members of the Corporation of the Gerontological Society, 1974). According to the minutes from the June 6, 1975 GSA Board meeting, the President’s Report requests “ [GSA] members give testimony to congressional committees, especially regarding the budget of NIA and top administrative leadership in NIA” (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council & Members of the Corporation of the Gerontological Society, 1974).

Advocacy continued, and Congress appropriated funds for the NIA in 1974. The first appearance of funding from NIA to GSA is documented in meeting minutes from October of 1976 where a committee noted an “NIA grant for some travel expenses” as reported during the International Meetings Committee report (Gottesman, 1977, p. 54).

NIA’s Founding Director

In 1976, longtime GSA member Dr. Robert N. Butler was appointed as the founding Director of NIA. Described as a “pioneering gerontologist” in a Columbia University Irving Medical Center piece, Butler served as the visionary for the nascent NIA in the role he held until 1982 (Butler, 2022). A man ahead of his time, Butler conducted research that “debunked the myth of the inevitability of senility as a function of aging, hoping to liberate an ever growing segment of the population from the stigmas associated with age,” according to the article, which also notes that Butler coined the term “ageism” during an interview (Butler, 2022). According to the same article, Butler was interviewed by Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein, where Butler is cited as stating, “‘You know, it’s really an outrage…It’s like racism, it’s ageism!’”

The Robert N. Butler Columbia Aging Center, located at the Mailman School of Public Health, is named for Butler, who died in 2010 (Butler, 2022). As noted in the Columbia University piece, “He was the founding director of the National Institute on Aging who staked his career on the premise that older people not only deserve better, but also are an invaluable resource society can’t afford to waste.”

The 2022 article highlights Butler’s impact on the budget growth of NIA, noting, “Other NIH directors and high-level scientists who had been skeptical of the need for an institute specifically devoted to aging—no doubt threatened by the diversion of funding—were more amenable to productive dialogue with a Pulitzer Prize winner,” referring to Butler.

“GSA’s advocacy role in NIA’s founding came full circle at its annual meeting in New York, NY, in 1976, when it celebrated the creation of the new institute,” Binstock recalls in his 2010 article (Binstock, 2010, p. 9). “… The opening session of the meeting, arranged by Senate staffer Oriol and then-GSA President Binstock, consisted of a hearing of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging titled “Medicine and Aging: An Assessment of Opportunities and Neglect.” As its star witness, the hearing featured Butler who delineated his priority plans for NIA to promote research and education in geriatrics” (Binstock, 2010, p. 9).

“GSA’s advocacy role in NIA’s founding came full circle at its annual meeting in New York, NY, in 1976, when it celebrated the creation of the new institute,” Binstock recalls in his 2010 article. “… The opening session of the meeting, arranged by Senate staffer Oriol and then-GSA President Binstock, consisted of a hearing of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging titled ‘Medicine and Aging: An Assessment of Opportunities and Neglect.’”

Expanded Research and Innovation

Although both NIA and GSA have grown and changed exponentially since 1976, one aspect of NIA that has not changed is its position as one of the few institutes of NIH that does not focus on a specific disease or condition, offering itself as a unique, multidisciplinary organization with many functions of study and research across the life course—very similar to the mission of GSA, which is to “cultivate excellence in interdisciplinary aging research and education to advance innovations in practice and policy.” NIA, in highlighting its golden anniversary, poses itself as leading “a broad scientific research effort to understand the nature of aging and to extend the healthy, active years of life” (National Institute on Aging, 2024).

And it’s been through NIA’s broad scope of research in aging that it has been able to make meaningful impacts on the lives of all adults across the life course. As one example, NIA serves as the lead federal agency for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias research (National Institute on Aging, 2024). In 1984, only 10 years after its founding, the NIA established the first Alzheimer’s Disease Centers and as of today, there are more than 30 centers located across the United States where researchers “translate research advances into improved diagnosis and care for people with Alzheimer’s disease, as well as working to find a treatment or way to prevent Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia” (Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers, 2023). A few years later, Congress authorized establishment of NIA’s Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral Center, and in 1991, the institute established the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study “to facilitate the testing of new drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, particularly drugs that might not otherwise be tested by industry.” (National Institutes on Health, 2022; Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), 2020).

NIA’s work in brain health continued to grow. More recently, in 2020, NIA and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke announced the establishment of the Roy Blunt Center for Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias, or CARD, whose mission is to “initiate, stimulate, accelerate, and support research that will lead to the development of improved treatments and preventions for these diseases” (CARD, 2024).

Outside of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, NIA continues to contribute much to society in its leadership funding for evidence-based research of genetic, biological, clinical, behavioral, social, and economic research on aging; fostering the development of research and clinician scientists in aging; providing research resources; and disseminating information about aging and advances in research to the public, health care professionals, and the scientific community, among a variety of audiences.

One such example of this work is NIA’s Research Centers Collaborative Network (RCCN), which promotes cross-disciplinary collaboration among researchers from a variety of fields of aging science (National Institute on Aging, 2023a). According to RCCN’s website, created in late 2018, the NIA-funded network was designed to “foster collaboration and bridge gaps among the seven NIA Centers programs … led by the American Federation for Aging Research and investigators at Wake Forest School of Medicine, this interdisciplinary effort brings together researchers with diverse expertise to advance aging research” (NIA RCCN, 2023a). “The NIA RCCN supports these efforts across the NIA-funded Centers through diverse strategies, including development of collaborative tools, conferences, pilot programs, and early career investigator support.” (NIA RCCN, 2023a).

NIA funds research in a broad range of areas exploring ways to integrate the Hallmarks of Aging, which include “genomic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, deregulated nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, and altered intercellular communication...” (National Institutes of Health, 2022). NIA supports Geroscience research, which “seeks to understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms responsible for aging as a major driver of common chronic conditions and diseases of older people.” (Trans-NIH Geroscience Interest Group [GSIG], 2023).

The institute invests in behavioral and social health research in driving advancements in aging. For instance, research on health and well-being highlights disparities in health at older ages and interventions to improve health and functioning. Research summarized in a National Advisory Council on Aging report includes findings of increased “geographic inequality in mortality rates for older adults” between 1980 and 2014 on a county level, while the same was not seen in children and younger adults (Crimmins et al., 2019, p. 13). Further research has found that expansion of Medicaid coverage “to near-poor adults produced a mixed set of results,” including reports of fewer depressive symptoms and financial problems, and in increase in preventive services used but “no fewer emergency room visits or improved health after two years.” In addition to hosting and leading the Centers on the Demography and Economics of Aging and the Roybal Centers for Translational Research, the flagship Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research (RCMAR) is part of the research portfolio specific to behavioral and social health research (Crimmins et al., 2019, p. 15).

NIA also invests in clinical and translational research on health and disease in older people and research over the life course and its relationship to health outcomes (Division of Geriatrics and Clinical Gerontology, n.d.). One such example is a study focused on how reducing calorie intake may “rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health. …” (National Institute on Aging, 2023b). Using data from participants in the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term Care Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE), a study that examined whether moderate calorie restriction conveys the same health benefits seen in animal studies, researchers “found that during a two-year span, the goal for participants was to reduce their daily caloric intake by 25 percent … (National Institute on Aging, 2023b) [T]he highest the group was able to reach was a 12 percent reduction. Even so, this slight reduction in calories was enough to activate most of the biological pathways that are important in healthy aging.” (National Institute on Aging, 2023b).

Ongoing Collaboration

As the two organizations have aged together, GSA and NIA have maintained a collaborative relationship through our mutual goals and missions of using evidenced-based research and applying those insights to inform practice, education, and policy. GSA’s Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological & Medical Sciences and Series B: Psychological & Social Sciences, The Gerontologist, and Innovation in Aging are privileged to publish leading research supported by NIA funding. Likewise, the Society’s Annual Scientific Meeting serves as the venue for disseminating NIA supported research findings to the entire field. Funding from NIA supports GSA programs such as the Society’s biological sciences programming and Diversity, Mentoring, and Career Development Technical Assistance Workshop.

One prominent example of our ongoing partnership includes GSA’s collaborative agreement with NIA in leading RCMAR National Coordinating Center, which supports behavioral and social research on aging, health disparities in older adults, and Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related dementias at 18 RCMAR Centers across the United States. This goal is reached through the development of research infrastructure and the mentorship of early career scientists from diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to individuals from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research, individuals with disabilities, and women.

In addition to these partnerships, GSA serves not only as a member of Friends of the National Institute on Aging (FoNIA) but also on its executive committee. The coalition supports the mission of NIA “and serves as a bridge between the NIA and supportive organizations and groups in order to promote and advocate for the NIA and its initiatives as public policies in health and research take shape. By bringing together like-minded organizations to support the federal government’s leading aging research institute, FoNIA addresses current and future challenges in advancing public awareness and acceptance of research goals.” (FoNIA, 2024) Former GSA Deputy Executive Director Linda Harootyan served as FoNIA Chair from 2013 to 2015, and GSA Vice-President for Policy and Professional Affairs, Trish D’Antonio, has just completed a 2 year term as FoNIA chair. (FoNIA, 2024)

Ongoing Stewardship of the Aging Research Enterprise

Thanks to the strong leadership of NIA Director Dr. Robert Butler (1976–1982), NIA Director Dr. T. Franklin Williams (1982–1991), and NIA Director Richard J. Hodes, appointed in 1993, the NIA continues to grow and thrive. These effective leaders, supported over the past fifty years by thousands of staff members, volunteers, and advocates, have transformed the NIA into the largest funder of aging research in the world. The NIA’s work has improved the lives of us all as we age. Just as we have in the years leading up to 1974 and after, GSA is proud to stand beside NIA as we look toward a healthy and meaningful future for us all.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References