Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Executive Summary
Pages 1-12

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...
... to report on the possibilities of augmenting program funding from nonfederal sources. IOM was asked to form a committee to identify mechanisms that could be used to leverage such funding, assess the impacts of alternative nonfederal sources and mechanisms of funding on CDMRP, and identify any legal or regulatory barriers to leveraging nonfederal funding.
From page 2...
... , but the program lacks the authority to accept private funds and a foundation would need to be established to solicit private funds for collaborative projects. The committee developed recommendations for CDMRP to facilitate federal funding that emphasize voluntary collaborations in funding research and that focus on providing CDMRP with the authority to engage in jointly funded projects and programs while ensuring that the best features of the current program are not undermined.
From page 3...
... Efforts to increase industry support of CDMRP programs could shift priorities toward such activities. Second, forprofit co-funding of awards to university scientists could introduce a number of issues and potential risks, including conflicts of interest for faculty who could benefit financially from their university research; increased secrecy and other restrictions on the dissemination of industrial research results; reduced faculty time commitments to the activities of the university; and the use of students in conducting privately funded research.
From page 4...
... For example, one effect of a cost-sharing requirement in CDMRP programs might be that charitable organizations will be called on to provide matching funds that they would have spent themselves on the same areas of research. Although the total amount spent on the CDMRP program would be increased, the overall amount of funding for biomedical research would not change.
From page 5...
... The funding arrangements involved in voluntary collaborations may include pooling funds for grants, but they also may include arrangements in which funding does not change hands, such as agreements to fund grants separately or to fund different but complementary parts of a project or for nonfederal donors to provide supplements to federal grantees. Some federal agencies, such as NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
From page 6...
... Increased cost sharing would need to be carefully designed to ensure that the peer review system is not distorted, for example, by discouraging proposals from investigators representing institutions with little access to cost-sharing resources or by inciting a bidding war among applicants. If CDMRP accepts funds from nonfederal sources -- for example, donations from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies to expand the pool of grants for a particular program of mutual interest -- those funds should be distributed through the existing two-step peer review process to applicants who present the best proposals in terms of technical excellence and program relevance.
From page 7...
... Based on NIH and CDC experience, however, the amounts of nonfederal funding would be very small compared with federal funding. A related mechanism would be the establishment of a nonprofit foundation to solicit funds for CDMRP programs, because even if CDMRP were authorized to accept contributions, federal employees may not actively seek them to augment appropriated funds.
From page 8...
... RECOMMENDATIONS The committee determined that it would be possible to leverage nonfederal funds, but only to a limited extent for certain types of research that are not the main focus of the CDMRP program. This includes later-stage research with potential near-term applications that are likely to be commercially viable, a type of research that already is supported by major medical research funders.
From page 9...
... CDMRP should facilitate collaborative arrange ments for funding research when collaboration would be beneficial and appropriate -- for example, when it would achieve greater results through synergy or economies of scale or critical mass -- but CDMRP should not expect such arrangements to augment significantly overall program funding. Opportunities for collaboration with other sponsors of biomedical R&D should be encouraged, not to stretch program funds, but rather to achieve program goals that could not be met otherwise.
From page 10...
... The Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine was established to be the recipient of funding for medical research and education projects from other federal and nonfederal sources, but only on behalf of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, researchers at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and other intramural DOD researchers.
From page 11...
... Recommendation 3. CDMRP should not impose cost-sharing or match ing fund requirements beyond those currently required, except when a tangible benefit to the award recipient is anticipated beyond the imme diate term or scope of CDMRP-supported activity (for example, funding of instruments and facilities)
From page 12...
... Other research funding agencies such as NIH and CDC have issued guidelines, which could serve as models for DOD guidelines. They focus on such issues as potential conflicts of interest that must be identified and addressed; intellectual property rights; the timely publication of research results; and the maintenance of academic freedom, and they contain suggestions of ways to avoid or manage them.


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.