National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

STRATEGIES TO LEVERAGE RESEARCH FUNDING

Guiding DOD’s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs

Committee on Alternative Funding Strategies for DOD’s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs

Medical Follow-Up Agency
and

Board on Health Sciences Policy

Michael McGeary and Kathi E. Hanna, Editors

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. W81XWH-04-C-0077 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Strategies to leverage research funding : guiding DOD's peer reviewed medical research programs / Committee on Alternative Funding Strategies for DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs, Medical Follow-Up Agency and Board on Health Sciences Policy ; Michael McGeary and Kathi E. Hanna, editors.

p. ; cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 0-309-09277-9 (pbk.)

1. Medicine—Research—United States—Finance. 2. United States. Dept. of Defense. [DNLM: 1. United States. Dept. of Defense. 2. Biomedical Research—economics—United States. 3. Research Support—methods—United States. W 20.5 S8986 2004] I. McGeary, Michael G. H. II. Hanna, Kathi E. III. Committee on Alternative Funding Strategies for DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs.

R854.U5S754 2004

362.1072073—dc22

2004022342

Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.

For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at: www.iom.edu.

Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

“Knowing is not enough; we must apply.

Willing is not enough; we must do.”

—Goethe

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Adviser to the Nation to Improve Health

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATGIES FOR DOD’S PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Joseph S. Pagano, Chair, Lineberger Professor of Cancer Research and Director Emeritus,

Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Samuel Broder, Executive Vice President,

Celera Genomics, Rockville, Maryland (member until May 25, 2004)

Eric G. Campbell, Assistant Professor,

Institute for Health Policy, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Thomas C. Caskey, President and Chief Executive Officer,

Cogene Biotech Ventures, Ltd., Houston, Texas

Robert Cook-Deegan, Director,

Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy, Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University

Maryann Feldman, Chair,

Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship and

Professor of Business Economics,

Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto

MaryAnn Guerra, Vice President,

Research Operations, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, Arizona

Musa Mayer, Consumer and Author,

New York

Frank E. Samuel, Jr., Science and Technology Advisor to Governor of Ohio

Project Staff

Michael McGeary, Study Director,

Medical Follow-Up Agency

Reine Y. Homawoo, Senior Program Assistant,

Medical Follow-Up Agency

David Butler, Senior Program Officer,

Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (July 2004)

Jennifer Pinkerman, Research Associate,

Medical Follow-Up Agency (through May 2004)

Susan McCutchen, Research Associate,

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (June 2004)

Kathi E. Hanna, Consultant

Sara Davidson Maddox, Editor

IOM Staff

Frederick (Rick) Erdtmann, Director,

Medical Follow-Up Agency

Andrew Pope, Director,

Board on Health Sciences Policy

Pamela Ramey-McCray, Administrative Assistant,

Medical Follow-Up Agency

Andrea Cohen, Financial Associate

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Irwin Feller

Emeritus Professor of Economics

Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation

Pennsylvania State University

Mauro Ferrari

Ohio State University

National Cancer Institute

Mark Frankel

Program Director

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

Hedvig Hricak

Chair, Department of Radiology

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Jerald Sadoff

Chief Executive Officer

Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation

Richard L. Sprott

Executive Director

Ellison Medical Foundation

Thomas P. Stossel

American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine

Harvard Medical School

Palmer W. Taylor

Sandra & Monroe Trout Professor of Pharmacology

Dean, School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences

University of California, San Diego

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch and Peter M. Howley. Appointed by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, respectively, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

Preface

In 1992, in response to efforts of breast cancer survivors to direct more funding to understanding breast cancer and new and better ways to treat it, the U.S. Congress inserted a line-item in the fiscal year (FY) 1993 appropriation for the Department of Defense (DOD) that provided $210 million for peer-reviewed research on breast cancer. The U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command implemented the congressional mandate by establishing the Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP). Congress has not only continued to insert a line-item in the DOD budget each year for BCRP, it has added line-items for research on neurofibromatosis (FY 1996), prostate cancer (FY 1997), ovarian cancer (FY 1997), chronic myelogenous leukemia (FY 2002), tuberous sclerosis (FY 2002), and prion diseases (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) (FY 2002). In addition, in FY 1999, Congress established a program of peer-reviewed research on military service-related topics, such as laser eye injury and trauma care.

Collectively, these mandated activities are known as the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP). In recent years, CDMRP appropriations have totaled more than $350 million and funded more than 700 new awards annually to investigators in university, nonprofit research institutes, and in industrial, state government, and federal laboratories throughout the United States.

CDMRP is distinguished by its emphasis on innovation, especially in translational research, achieved primarily by supporting new ideas and bringing in new investigators. CDMRP uses a peer review system recommended by a 1993 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report that was modeled after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) system, but with a notable addition, the participation—not just

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

representation—of patient advocates, then unprecedented and still unusual in government research programs. The peer review system is two-tiered, first reviewing research proposals for scientific quality, then reviewing them for programmatic relevance. Consumer advocates serve on both the first and the second-tier panels. CDMRP’s performance has met with the approval of scientists, the satisfaction of legislators and their constituents, pride on the part of the program’s administrators, and results.

In 1992, DOD was downsizing in response to the end of the Cold War, and it was relatively easy to find room in the DOD budget for a program meeting an urgent public need. Today, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, DOD’s budget situation is different. DOD’s mission has expanded to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and maintain the peace in other hot spots around the world, and the demands on the DOD budget have escalated. There is heavy downward pressure on the other activities of DOD, including CDMRP, which had a budget of more than $390 million as recently as FY 2002.

At the direction of Congress, DOD asked the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study exploring the possibility of attracting nonfederal funds to augment CDMRP’s appropriated funds. The IOM appointed a committee to identify sources and means of nonfederal funding that could augment CDMRP’s resources and strengthen it through creative partnering.

The Committee was well aware of the larger context for biomedical research support, in which tight budgets not only affect CDMRP but also the largest source of public funds, the National Institutes of Health. Importantly, the charge was not to evaluate CDMRP or recommend whether it should be maintained, curtailed, or phased out nor to consider other sources of federal co-funding, such as NIH. Rather the task given was to assess the potential for leveraging nonfederal resources to achieve the goals of CDMRP.

Members of the Committee sought to identify some innovative collaborative funding arrangements that CDMRP could use and that also could serve as models for other federal agencies and searched for imaginative solutions. For example, the Committee reviewed a variety of examples of innovative public-private cost sharing, partnerships, and other joint ventures in support of research and development (R&D), not only involving federal agencies, but also state and international agencies (examples are briefly described in Appendix A). A two-day workshop with presentations from representatives of nonfederal funding sources—including foundations, voluntary health agencies, universities, state research and economic development agencies, industry and venture capital—as well as of exemplary public-private research collaborations—was most informative and set the bases for models and sources that the Committee might realistically recommend (the workshop agenda is in Appendix C). Also, the Committee commissioned a paper reviewing economic studies of public-private collaboration in R&D and looked at the literature on the uses of cost-sharing and matching to augment federal research budgets (the paper is in Appendix D).

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

The report that follows assesses the extent of nonfederal sources of funding for research and details a variety of opportunities for leveraging nonfederal funding from the numerous sources examined. There are many examples in which the coordination of effort or the pooling of resources, or both, have leveraged research results that could not have been achieved otherwise. At the same time, the report is realistic about the extent to which these joint efforts are likely to generate a significant amount of additional resources for CDMRP.

The Committee would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that provided information and expert judgment, especially those who participated in the workshop on short notice. They and their organizational affiliations are listed in the agenda for the workshop (Appendix C). Several organizations submitted statements which were carefully considered by the committee—the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association on April 27, 2004, during the public statement period of the workshop, and the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases on May 20, 2004, by letter. Others who assisted were Greg Downing, National Cancer Institute; Neil Buckholtz and Susan Molchan, National Institute on Aging; James Schuttinga and Karen Pla, Office of the NIH Director; John Lowe and Kelly Robbins of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine; Geoffrey Frisch of the Centers for Disease Control Foundation; and John Moore, CDC. The CDMRP staff was most helpful, including the director, Col. Kenneth Bertram, M.D., Ph.D., deputy director, Lt. Col. Calvin Carpenter, and several program directors, including Patricia Modrow, Ph.D., Leo Giambarresi, Ph.D., and Richard H. Kenyon, Ph.D.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee, who took on this assignment on short notice and attended three meetings and the workshop in a compressed time frame. The mix of expertise and experience was stimulating and well suited for the task. We learned from each other and came to know and regard well this significant biomedical research enterprise of the Department of Defense.

Finally, I would like to thank the study staff for the superb job they did at all levels despite the constraints imposed by a six-month deadline.

Joseph S. Pagano, M.D.

Chair

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

Figures, Tables, and Boxes

FIGURES

1-1

 

CDMRP budget and program planning and execution cycle,

 

25

1-2

 

Distribution of extramural award funding among types of research support, FY 2002,

 

28

1-3

 

Distribution of extramural award funding among areas of research, FY 2002 (in percentages),

 

29

2-1

 

Foundation grant dollars by purpose, 2002,

 

45

TABLES

1-1

 

CDMRP Award Results, FY 1993-FY 2003,

 

19

1-2

 

Funding History of CDMRP Core Programs (in millions of dollars),

 

24

2-1

 

Federal Obligations for Health R&D by Source, FY 1997-FY 1999 (in millions of dollars),

 

39

2-2

 

Expenditures for Biomedical and Behavioral R&D at Universities and Colleges, FY 2001 (in thousands of dollars),

 

43

2-3

 

The 12 Largest VHAs in Research Grant Expenditures, FY 2002,

 

46

3-1

 

Typology of Federal/Nonfederal Funding Arrangements,

 

56

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

BOXES

1-1

 

CDMRP Core Programs,

 

26

2-1

 

The CDC Foundation,

 

40

2-2

 

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International,

 

48

2-3

 

Example of State-Funded Biotechnology Development: North Carolina Biotechnology Center,

 

51

2-4

 

Example of State-Funded Medical Research: Ohio’s Third Frontier Project,

 

52

4-1

 

Avon Foundation-NCI “Progress for Patients” Awards Program,

 

80

4-2

 

FNIH,

 

86

4-3

 

Example of a TIA,

 

87

D-1

 

Examples and Objectives of “Social Venture Capital” in International Health,

 

163

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

Abbreviations and Acronyms


AAFRC

American Association of Fundraising Counsel

ABC2

Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure

ABCC

administrative and bioinformatics coordinating center

ACCP

Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention

AD

Alzheimer’s disease

ADA

American Diabetes Association

ADNI

Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

AHA

American Heart Association

AICR

American Institute for Cancer Research

ALS

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

AP4

Academic Public-Private Partnership Program

ARL

Army Research Laboratory

ARMF

Applied Research Matching Fund

ATP

Advanced Technology Program

AUTM

Association of University Technology Managers


BCRP

Breast Cancer Research Program

BIO

Biotechnology Industry Organization

BRCAl

breast cancer 1 gene

Bt

Bacillus thuringiensis


CAD

Canadian dollar

CAL-(IT)2

California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

CBCRP

California Breast Cancer Research Program

CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDMRP

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs

CF

cystic fibrosis

CFF

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

CFFT

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Therapeutics, Inc.

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

CIHR

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

CITRIS

Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society

CMLRP

Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Research Program

CNSI

California Nanosystems Institute

CRADA

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

CSI

Congressional Special Interest

CSO

Common Scientific Outline


DARPA

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DCA

Defense Cooperation Account

DFID

Department for International Development

DHHS

Department of Health and Human Services

DNA

deoxyribonucleic acid

DOD

Department of Defense

DOE

Department of Energy

DTI

Department of Trade and Industry

DUS&T

Dual Use Science and Technology (DUS&T) Program


EMBRAPA

Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária)

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ERC

Engineering Research Center


FDA

Food and Drug Administration

FNIH

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health

FY

fiscal year


GC

Genome Canada

GICUR

Government/Industry Co-sponsorship of University Research Program

GUIRR

Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable


HEFCE

Higher Education Funding Council of England

HEI

Health Effects Institute

HER2

Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

HHMI

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

HIPAA

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

HTP

Human Transcriptome Project


IAVI

International AIDS Vaccine Initiative

ICR

Islet Cell Resource Center

IDEA

Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards

IOM

Institute of Medicine

IP

intellectual property

ISS

International Space Station

ITN

Immune Tolerance Network

I/UCRC

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program

IUCRP

Industry-University Cooperative Research Program


JDRF

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International

JIF

Joint Infrastructure Fund


KTEC

Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation


LLNL

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


MARCO

Microelectronics Advanced Research Corporation

MDA

Muscular Dystrophy Association

MDCRC

Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research Center Program

MIM

Multilateral Initiative on Malaria

MMV

Medicines for Malaria Venture

MRSEC

Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program

MSC

Mouse Sequencing Consortium

MTA-CRADA

material transfer agreement CRADA


NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NBCC

National Breast Cancer Coalition

NCBC

North Carolina Biotechnology Center

NCI

National Cancer Institute

NCRA

National Cooperative Research Act

NCRR

National Center for Research Resources

NEI

National Eye Institute

NF

neurofibromatosis

NFRP

Neurofibromatosis Research Program

NGA

National Governors Association

NGO

nongovernmental organization

NHGRI

National Human Genome Research Institute

NHLBI

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

NIA

National Institute on Aging

NIAID

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

NIAMS

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

NICHD

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

NCRR

National Center for Research Resources

NIDCR

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

NIDDK

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

NIEHS

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NIMH

National Institute of Mental Health

NINDS

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

NINR

National Institute of Nursing Research

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NSB

National Science Board

NSEC

Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers Program

NSF

National Science Foundation

NVCA

National Venture Capital Association


OAI

Osteoarthritis Initiative

OCRP

Ovarian Cancer Research Program

OIG

Office of Inspector General

OIT

Ontario Innovation Trust

OMB

Office of Management and Budget

ORDCF

Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund

ORMH

Office of Research on Minority Health

ORWH

Office of Research on Women’s Health

OST

Office of Science and Technology


PCRP

Prostate Cancer Research Program

PFI

Partnerships for Innovation

PhRMA

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

PPP

public-private partnership

PRMRP

Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program


QB3

California Institute for Bioengineering, Biotechnology, and Quantitative Biomedical Research


R!A

Research!America

R&D

research and development

RAD

Research Area Directorate

RFA

Request for Applications

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

RFP

Request for Proposals

RJV

research joint venture


SARS

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SBIR

Small Business Innovation Research Program

SEMATECH

Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology Consortium

SGC

Structural Genomics Consortium

SPD

Space Partnership Development

SPORE

Specialized Programs of Research Excellence

SRIF

Science Research Investment Fund

SSTI

State Science and Technology Institute

STAR

Strategic Technology and Research Fund

STC

Science and Technology Center

STTR

Small Business Technology Transfer Program


T1DGC

International Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium

TATRC

Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center

TB

tuberculosis

TCRF

Technology Commercialization Research Fund

TDN

Therapeutic Development Network

TEDDY

Triggers and Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in Youth

TGEN

Translational Genomics Research Institute

TIA

Technology Investment Agreement

TMM

Technologies for Metabolic Monitoring

TOBI

tobramycin solution for inhalation

TSCRP

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Research Program


UC

University of California

UK

United Kingdom

U.S.

United States

USAMRDC U.S.

Army Medical Research and Development Command

USAMRMC U.S.

Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

USDA U.S.

Department of Agriculture


VA

Department of Veterans Affairs

VHAs

voluntary health agencies


WHO

World Health Organization

Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR20
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR21
Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11089.
×
PageR22
Next: Executive Summary »
Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $57.00 Buy Ebook | $45.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since 1992 the Department of Defense (DOD), through the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, has received congressionally earmarked appropriations for programs of biomedical research on prostate, breast, and ovarian cancer; neurofibromatosis; tuberous sclerosis; and other health problems. Appropriations for these Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs are used to support peer reviewed extramural research project, training, and infrastructure grants.

Congress has become concerned about funding increases for these programs given current demands on the military budget. At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined possibilities of augmenting program funding from alternative sources. The resulting IOM book, Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD’s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs, focuses on nonfederal and private sector contributions that could extend the appropriated funds without biasing the peer review project selection process.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!