tions sufficient, or is the impact factor important? Is the total amount of extramural support sufficient, or is the source critical?

• Should one maintain applicant or awardee contact information or try to locate investigators later?

• What is an acceptable response rate? How can response bias be avoided when comparing awardees to unfunded applicants?

• Are successful outcomes a function of good peer review at the beginning or of the funding?

• How does one evaluate the impact of the program on public health?

Comroe, J. H., and R. D. Dripps. 1978. The Top Ten Clinical Advances in Cardiovascular-Pulmonary Medicine and Surgery, 1945–1975. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hinton, P. C., and S. Read. 1994. AHA Research Program Evaluation Guide. American Heart Association.

Hinton, P. C. 1998. American Heart Association-Bugher Foundation Centers for Molecular Biology in the Cardiovascular System, Update on Progress. American Heart Association.

Morgan, H. E., and S. R. Paul. 1995. American Heart Association-Bugher Foundation Centers for Molecular Biology in the Cardiovascular System. Circulation 91(2):487–493.

Stryer, D. 2004. Program Evaluation Fundamentals and Best Practices. Invited presentation, Partnering to Advance Health Research: Philanthropy’s Role, March 4.