1. Citations per individual and per article

  2. Success in achieving extramural funding, especially a traditional NIH research program award (R01)

In addition, the committee determined that the use of a comparison group would strengthen its ability to assess the relative impact of the Markey award on the Scholars’ outcomes. The committee established three criteria to use in searching for possible comparison groups for the evaluation of the Markey Scholars. First, they specifically sought programs that provided transitional funding for postdocs, not funding to faculty (persons with faculty status were ineligible for the Markey Scholar award). Second, they sought programs that provided initial funding for approximately the same time as the Markey Scholars, 1985 through 1991. Finally, they sought programs that provided generous funding for seven years that included both stipend/salary funding as well as funds for laboratory expenses. The committee could find no programs that met these criteria. The NIH K22 awards did not begin until 1998. The Burroughs Wellcome awards, based on the Markey award, did not begin until 1995. The American Heart Association fellow-to-faculty awards did not begin until 2002. Career development awards made by Pew, Searle, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Sloan, Keck, and Beckman are all oriented toward funding faculty and generally speaking provide funding for only 3 or 4 years. Markle awards were restricted to physicians.

The committee concluded that the best comparison group would be candidates who were considered for the Markey Award but who did not receive it. After examining the Scholar selection process, the committee decided that two comparison groups could be identified. The first comparison group was composed of candidates who were top-ranked but not selected (referred to in this report as “top-ranked candidates”). The second comparison group consisted of candidates who were competitive, but not top-ranked (referred to in this report as “competitive candidates”).


The evaluation of the Markey Scholars Program presented the committee with some interesting considerations. First, the outcome of the evaluation would not inform the Markey Trust, which no longer existed. Rather the evaluation would inform others in the philanthropic community that supported the training and research of biomedical scientists. Second, whatever approach to evaluation the committee selected, the approach would be a hybrid: a combination of both a prospective and a retrospective assessment.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement