NIH Extramural Center Programs Criteria for Initiation and Evaluation (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 15-33
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 15... ...
To take advantage of the rich talent of American scientists, NIH carries out its mission of advancing science and its applications primarily by supporting extramural research, that is, research conducted by investigators in universities, academic health centers, and independent research institutes. In addition to producing extraordinary scientific and medical advances, the policy of supporting research in academia insures a continuing supply of well-trained researchers, because graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are able to learn by participating in cutting-edge research.
|
From page 16... ...
Chapter 2 explores this variety in more detail, but the committee believes that it is useful to conceive of center grants as members of one of three general types: 1. Center Infrastructure awards, or "core" grants, support administrative and technical services required by a group of investigators whose research is funded by independently obtained research grants.
|
From page 17... ...
Examples of their products include animal models, microarrays for genomic analyses, and production of islet cells for transplantation in patients with diabetes. The first two types of center programs are especially popular with the public, organizations representing patients, and Congress, because they can bring focus, visibility, and, often, more funding (private and public)
|
From page 18... ...
There is certainly evidence that center programs can be and have been very productive ways to organize research. For example, collaborative research among Alzheimer's Disease Centers supported by the National Institute on Aging has led to a number of discoveries, including the finding that one form of apolipoprotein E is an inherited risk factor for the development of sporadic Alzheimer's disease and that familial Alzheimer's disease is linked to genes on chromosomes 21, 14, and 1 (NIA, 2001)
|
From page 19... ...
To be cost effective, the advantages of research centers must outweigh the initial investment in infrastructure, extra costs of managing the program, additional costs of center administration, and reduced flexibility in the institute's budget imposed by a relatively large and long-term funding commitment. As a brief introduction to an analysis developed in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, a minimum set of criteria for initiating a center program should include the existence of promising research opportunities that are uniquely suited to the center approach or can be pursued better or faster through center support than individual project grants, enough qualified and interested investigators to form the nucleus of leadership for the centers, and a reasonable expectation that institute's budget can support a long-term commitment to the center program without compromising the institute's balanced research portfolio.
|
From page 20... ...
have been issued for five new center programs (National Technology Centers for Networks and Pathways, National Centers for Biomedical Computing, Exploratory Centers for Interdisciplinary Research, Development of High Resolution Probes for Cellular Imaging, and Centers for Innovation in Membrane Protein Production) and at least three more center programs are in the planning stage (Nanomedicine Centers, Bioactive Small Molecule Library and Screening Centers, and Regional Translational Research Centers)
|
From page 21... ...
The research and training contributions of Centers should 6P.L. 107-84, Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2001, Sec.
|
From page 22... ...
Finally, several programs called centers of excellence that are of interest to advocacy groups and Congress are not supported with center grants. IOM staff thus sought guidance about the scope intended, and Senate staff confirmed that the study was meant to include all NIH-supported research centers, whether or not they are formally called centers of excellence.
|
From page 23... ...
The report is organized around broad topics: current use of extramural centers by NIH, initiation and management of center programs, and evaluation of center programs, but each element of the charge is specifically addressed at an appropriate place in the report. BACKGROUND ON NIH As noted above, supporting extramural research centers within universities, medical centers, hospitals, and other research institutions is one way that NIH carries out its mission, which is "science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability."7 NIH itself is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, along with other health-related agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
|
From page 24... ...
NIH funded 296 center grants in 1970, 542 in 1980, and 686 in 1990. 11 The intramural research program accounts for another 9 percent of the NIH budget, and the remainder funds the extramural research management and support staff, Office of the Director, National Library of Medicine, and construction and renovation of NIH buildings and facilities.
|
From page 25... ...
Although the number of extramural centers funded by NIH has grown steadily during the past 30 years, the percentage of the total NIH budget accounted for by center grants has remained between 8 percent and 9 percent since the mid1980s. It should be noted, however, that one of the findings of this study is that some center programs use awards that are not formally classified, and therefore not counted, as center awards.
|
From page 26... ...
Patient advocacy groups have pressed Congress to establish a series of center programs in recent years, and similar pressures from other advocacy groups for specific centers will no doubt be proposed in the future.
|
From page 27... ...
717, the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Childhood Assistance, Research and Education Amendments of 2001. The bill called for expansion of research and related programs concerning DMD and establishment of at least three DMD "centers of excellence" by NIH, establishment of three regional centers of excellence in DMD epidemiology by CDC, and establishment of an interagency muscular dystrophy coordinating committee to prepare a plan and report annually to Congress.
|
From page 28... ...
It argued that expanded funding should be used to support individual-investigator grants to advance the state of the science to the point that more elaborate programs, such as program projects, and eventually centers, would be productive. There were concerns that there might not be five good proposals and that center grants would most likely go to the small cadre of top investigators in the field who were already funded through individual project grants rather than expand the pool of researchers.
|
From page 29... ...
Broader Context The interactions among Congress, NIH, and the voluntary associations lobbying on behalf of muscular dystrophy patients and their families might 17Subsequently, the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, in its report on the FY2002 appropriations for NIH, "strongly" urged NINDS "to establish no fewer than three centers of excellence for basic and applied research in the muscular dystrophies." The report also called for "meaningful implementation" of the new centers of excellence in autism research mandated in the Children's Health Act of 2000. In October 2003 NIH announced the establishment of three cooperative research centers for the muscular dystrophies and plans to establish two more.
|
From page 30... ...
Bills specifying not less than five "centers of excellence regarding research on autism" and for at least three "centers to conduct research for the purposes of improving the diagnosis and treatment of, and finding the cure for, fragile X" were folded into the Children's Health Act of 2000.19 NIH argued against the autism centers on the grounds that the field was not advanced enough to warrant centers, and that the Collaborative Programs of Excellence in Autism, a multisite cooperative research network established in 1997 and funded by the program project grant mechanism, was the more appropriate mechanism for pushing research on autism beyond the R01 stage. There was concern that having to fund five centers in short order would mean that those already working in the field, whose best ideas were already funded, would be most likely to compete successfully for center grants, and that the net gain in effectiveness would be less than using the funding to increase the number of individual project grants, which would be more likely to attract new talent into the field.
|
From page 31... ...
Present and former institute directors provided their views on the pluses and minuses of centers as a means of advancing research, as did the president of a major medical center, dean of a leading school of nursing, president of the National Health Council, president of the Association of Academic Health Centers, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and representatives from the Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of Professors of Medicine, American Psychological Association, American Society for Nutritional Sciences, Association of Population Centers, and American Autoimmune-Related Diseases Association. The director of program development for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality described her agency's model for evaluating the impact of medical research, and the leader of the health team of the staff of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions explained the committee's reasons for mandating this study.
|
From page 32... ...
These interviews focused on the circumstances surrounding the origins and decision-making processes underlying these RFAs as well as plans for managing and evaluating the programs when they were implemented. The sponsor's project officers compiled and provided several custom reports on the number and funding of center programs as additional sources of information.
|
From page 33... ...
2003. Effect of hydroxyurea on mortality and morbidity in adult sickle cell anemia: Risks and benefits up to 9 years of treatment.
|
Key Terms
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.