Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Executive Summary
Pages 1-16

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... Most recently, former Director Harold Varmus argued in a 2001 article in Science that NIH would be more effective scientifically and more manageable if it were organized into a far smaller number of larger institutes organized around broad areas of science. Others counter that the elimination of units that focus on particular problems would reduce attention to and funding for these problems and that a consolidation of units would reduce congressional and public support and might not be politically feasible.
From page 2...
... While the Committee continues to have confidence in NIH's ability to fund outstanding research and to ensure that new knowledge will benefit all Americans, the fundamental changes in science that have occurred lead us to question whether the current NIH structure and organization are optimally configured for the scientific needs of the Twenty-first Century. Therefore, the Committee has provided to the NIH Director sufficient funds to undertake, through the National Academy of Sciences, a study of the structure of NIH.
From page 3...
... Committee members and staff also heard presentations from or interviewed NIH staff in the offices of policy and planning, budget, finance, and intramural research, and met with directors of 18 institutes or centers. Data about NIH programs and budgets were requested from NIH staff as the need emerged.
From page 4...
... It would be naive to assume that NIH was or should be organized exclusively along the lines dictated either by the interests of the scientific community or the priorities of any other single set of interests with a concern about promoting health-related research and advanced biomedical training. NIH's existing structure is the result of a set of complex evolving social and political negotiations among a variety of constituencies including the Congress, the administration, the scientific community, the health advocacy community, and others interested in research, research training, and public policy related to health.
From page 5...
... Any thoughtful major reorganization would necessitate a lengthy and complex information gathering and decision making process that would include numerous congressional hearings involving members of Congress, congressional staff, and a wide variety of interests in the various health advocacy and scientific communities. Our discussions, correspondence, and meetings made it quite clear that there would be very little agreement among these communities on what the right way to reorganize NIH is, and there would probably be dozens of conflicting ideas in play and few clear avenues for narrowing these down.
From page 6...
... While the Committee believes that it is critical that government continue attempts to eliminate inefficiencies, it would not serve anyone if such initiatives result in decreasing the effectiveness of NIH as a research and training organization or damage its ability to recruit talented leaders at all levels. Centralization of certain functions can be effective, but is not always the best means to achieve increased efficiencies.
From page 7...
... Recommendation 2: Public Process for Considering Proposed Changes in the Number of NIH Institutes or Centers Either on receiving a congressional request or at the discretion of the NIH director in responding to considerable, thoughtful, and sustained interest in changing the number of institutes or centers, the director should initiate a public process to evaluate scientific needs, opportunities, and consequences of the proposed change and the level of public support for it. For a proposed addition, the likelihood of available resources to support it should also be assessed and the burden of proof should reside clearly with those seeking to add an organizational element.
From page 8...
... ENHANCING NIH'S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO NEW CHALLENGES Although the Committee is not recommending a major structural reorganization of NIH's institutes and centers, it concluded that to meet the scientific and health goals of the nation, NIH needs new mechanisms for mobilizing and coordinating funding from many units for high-priority initiatives that cut across the purviews of individual ICs. Although co-funding of projects by multiple institutes occurs, it is not clear to what extent these projects are true "end-to-end" collaborations.
From page 9...
... b. The director of NIH should present the scientific rationale for trans-NIH budgeting to the relevant committees of Congress, including a proposed target for investment in trans-NIH initiatives across all institutes.
From page 10...
... . Recommendation 7: Create ~ Directors Special Projects Program A discrete program, the director's Special Projects Program, should be established in OD to fund the initiation of high-risk, exceptionally innovative research projects offering high potential payoff.
From page 11...
... The Committee believes that too little weight has been placed on potentially distinctive contributions of the IRP and that both uniqueness and quality should be essential justifications of the IRP. Recommendation 8: Promote Innovation and Risk Taking in Intramural Research The intramural research program should consist of research and training programs that complement and are distinguished from those in the extramural community and the private sector.
From page 12...
... It would provide opportunities for leading scientists across the nation to leave their positions for a set period to come to NIH as a form of public service to provide effective scientific leadership to critical elements of the nation's biomedical enterprise. Recommendation 10: Set Terns and Conditions forIC Director Appointments and Improve IC Director Review Process a.
From page 13...
... Recommendation 12: Reconsider the Status of the National Cancer Institute Congress should reassess the provisions of the National Cancer Act of 1971, particularly as they affect the authority of the NIH director to hire senior management and plan and coordinate the NIH budget and its programs in their entirety. Like other federal science agencies, NIH makes extensive use of advisory committees (variously known as study sections, councils, boards, etc.)
From page 14...
... The committee feels that the effectiveness of NIHis now imperiled by the lack of adequate resources to provide appropriate support both for its primary research mission and for meeting its accountability responsibilities. Recommendation 14: Increase Funding for Research Management and Support Congress should increase the appropriation for RMS to reflect more accurately the essential administrative costs required to effectively operate a world class $27 billion/year research organization effectively.
From page 15...
... The degree of convergence and divergence will continue to be influenced by other important factors such as the level of annual congressional appropriations to NIH. The recommendations made in this report are intended to help NIH to continue to be responsive, accountable, and effective in its leading role in the vast international humanitarian enterprise of biomedical research aimed at a better understanding of the human condition, the prevention and relief of disease, and the promotion of good health throughout the stages of life.
From page 16...
... 16 Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.