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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

In response to a request by the Lucille P.Markey Charitable Trust, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, through the Board on Higher Education and Workforce, is conducting an evaluation of the trust’s grant programs in the biomedical sciences. During an interval of 15 years, the Markey Trust spent over $500 million on four programs in the basic biomedical sciences to support the education and research of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, junior faculty, and senior researchers. This study addresses two questions: “Were these funds well spent?” and “What can others in the biomedical and philanthropic communities learn from the programs of the Markey Trust?” To accomplish these goals, the committee overseeing the project:

• has examined the General Organizational Grants program intended to catalyze new ways to train Ph.D. and M.D. students in translational research;

• convened a conference of Markey scholars and visiting fellows in 2002;

• reviewed the research program grants, which provided funding to institutions to support the work of senior investigators;

• evaluated the program for Markey scholars and visiting fellows, which supported young biomedical investigators in their early careers; and

• conducted a workshop to investigate methods used to evaluate funding of biomedical science by philanthropic donors.

Previously published reports that detail the activities of the Markey Trust are (1) Bridging the Bed-Bench Gap: Contributions of the Markey Trust, which examines the General Organizational Grants program; (2) The Markey Scholars Conference Proceedings, which summarizes presentations and abstracts from the 2002 Markey Scholars Conference held as part of the National Academies evaluation; and (3) Funding Biomedical Research: Contributions of the Markey Trust, which reviews the research program grants. All reports are available through the National Academies Press. An additional report will assess the Markey scholars and visiting fellows programs.

This is the fourth of a series of reports that document the activities of the Markey Trust. This report presents the proceedings of an NRC workshop, “Enhancing Philanthropy’s Support of Biomedical Scientists: The Role of Evaluation,” conducted in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2005. The workshop brought together evaluators from philanthropic and public funders of biomedical scientists to report on their evaluation activities. Speakers were asked to address four dimensions of their organizations’ evaluation strategy: (1) the reasons for program evaluations, (2) the types of data collected, (3) the evaluation methodologies utilized, and (4) how evaluation data are used to impact funding and policy decisions. The report contains the formal papers presented at the workshop and appendixes that present workshop-related material on the agenda and participants.

The papers do not represent an integrated or holistic approach to program evaluation but represent the current evaluation efforts of a number of private and public funders of biomedical research. Moreover, these papers focus on only one agenda for many of these funders—funding biomedical researchers—many of whom are at the beginning of their research careers. These papers demonstrate the more immediate evaluation needs of private and public funders, to determine if funds are well spent. For many funders this may preclude a thorough evaluation of the outcomes of any research conducted by the scientists funded, as the lead times for the outcomes of biomedical research may stretch into decades. Some of the evaluations are relatively simple, while others are more complex; some of the evaluations include comparison groups, while others do not. The documentation of attribution—how well the recipient would have done without the benefit of the award—may be difficult to assess in some or all of these evaluations. In addition, because of the long lead time, it may be impractical for philanthropic funders to evaluate the quality and impact of the research they fund. Consequently, many of the funders utilized more immediate outcomes of success such as publications, citations, and extramural funding. Nevertheless, the papers in this volume present both practical and novel approaches to evaluating the

immediate impact of funding biomedical researchers. This report can provide examples of successful evaluation strategies that other public and private funders can emulate.

The statements made in the enclosed papers are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent positions of the National Academies. This volume has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this volume: Lester Baxter, Pew Charitable Trust; Ross Conner, University of California, Irvine; Melvin Mark, Pennsylvania State University; and Leslie Pine, The Philanthropy Initiative.

Although the reviewers listed above provided constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report. Responsibility for the final content of the papers rests with the individual authors.

George Reinhart, Editor

Lee Sechrest, Chair

Committee for the Evaluation of the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust Programs in Biomedical Sciences

This page intentionally left blank.