National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs

Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health

Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process

Health Sciences Policy Program

Health Sciences Section

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1998

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

The Institute of Medicine was chartered in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to enlist distinguished members of the appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. In this, the Institute acts under both the Academy’s 1863 congressional charter responsibility to be an adviser to the federal government and its own initiative in identifying issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

Support for this project was provided by funds from the National Institutes of Health (Contract No. N01-OD-4-2139). The views presented in this report are those of the Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process and are not necessarily those of the funding organization.

International Standard Book No. 0-309-06130-X

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. Call (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area), or visit the NAP’s on-line bookstore at http://www.nap.edu.

The full text of this report is available on line at http://www.nap.edu.

For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at http://www2.nas.edu/iom.

Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The image adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is based on a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE NIH RESEARCH PRIORITY-SETTING PROCESS

LEON E. ROSENBERG* (Chair), Professor,

Department of Molecular Biology, and Woodwork Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

JOHN ALDERETE, Professor,

Department of Microbiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

KENNETH B. CHANCE, Dean and Professor of Endodontics,

Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry

CARON CHESS, Director,

Center for Environmental Communication, Cook College, Reuters University

PURNELL CHOPPIN,* President,

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

JAMES W. CURRAN,* Dean and Professor of Epidemiology,

The Rollin's School of Public Health, Emory University

DAVID CUTLER, Professor,

Department of Economics, Littauer Center, Harvard University

SUE DONALDSON,* Professor and Dean,

School of Nursing and Professor of Physiology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University

BARUCH FISCHHOFF,* University Professor,

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University

SID GILMAN,* William J. Herdman Professor and Chair,

Department of Neurology, University of Michigan

ROBERT L. HILL,* James B. Duke Professor,

Department of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center

RALPH HORWITZ,* Chair and Professor,

Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine

THOMAS KELLY, Boury Professor and Chairman,

Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns Hopkins University

ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President,

Programs, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

SUSAN C. SCRIMSHAW,* Dean and Professor of Community Health Sciences,

School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago

ROGER UNGER, Professor of Internal Medicine,

Center for Diabetes Research, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

MYRL WEINBERG, President,

National Health Council

LINDA S. WILSON,* President,

Radcliffe College

ADAM YARMOLINSKY,* Regents Professor of Public Policy

in the University of Maryland System

*  

Member of the Institute of Medicine.

  

Member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

Committee Liaisons

HARVEY R. COLTEN,* Dean and Vice President for Medical Affairs,

Northwestern University School of Medicine

JOSEPH T. COYLE,* Eben S. Draper Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Chair,

Consolidated Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

JOHN D. STOBO,* President,

University of Texas Medical Branch

Study Staff

ANDREW POPE, Director,

Health Sciences Policy Program

GEOFFREY FRENCH, Research Associate

Consultants

KATHI HANNA

MICHAEL McGEARY

Copy Editor

MICHAEL HAYES

Section Staff

CHARLES H. EVANS, JR., Head,

Health Sciences Section

ROBERT COOK-DEEGAN, Director,

National Cancer Policy Board

LINDA DEPUGH, Administrative Assistant

JAMAINE TINKER, Financial Associate

*  

Member of the Institute of Medicine.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

REVIEWERS

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the Institute of Medicine in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the final report is the responsibility of the Institute of Medicine and the study committee and not the responsibility of the reviewers. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee wishes to thank the following individuals, who are neither officials nor employees of the Institute of Medicine, for their participation in the review of this report:

JOHN ABELSON, California Institute of Technology

DONALD D. BROWN, Carnegie Institution of Washington

MICHAEL S. BROWN,* University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

JAMES EBERT,* Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole

ROBIN ELLIOTT, Parkinson's Disease Foundation

HARMON J. EYRE, American Cancer Society

MARC W. KIRSCHNER, Harvard Medical School

S. ROBERT LEVINE, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International

ROBERT LEVY,* American Home Products Corp.

MARSHALL LICHTMAN, Leukemia Society of America

DOROTHY RICE,* University of California, San Francisco

PAUL ROGERS,* Hogan & Hartson

CHARLES SANDERS,* Glaxo, Inc.

HOWARD K. SCHACHMAN, University of California, Berkeley

MORTON N. SWARTZ,* Massachusetts General Hospital

SAMUEL THIER,* Partners Health Care System, Inc.

LOWELL WEICKER, University of Virginia

MYRON WEISFELDT,* Columbia University and past president, American Heart Association

While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the Institute of Medicine.

*  

Member of the Institute of Medicine.

  

Member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

Preface

The United States is preeminent in medical research. Since World War II this country has fashioned a medical research system—with government, academia, and industry at its core—that is a source of great national pride and the envy of the world. The federal government is the single largest sponsor of this research, committing more than $16 billion of public funds in the current fiscal year (1998). Of this total, the vast majority—$13.6 billion—is appropriated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Given the size of this public investment and the likelihood that it will be increased significantly in the immediate future and given the mission of NIH—"to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone"—it should come as no surprise that there is intense interest in how NIH sets its priorities, that is, how it allocates its sizable budget. How could it be otherwise? Every one of us wants to live a long and healthy life. Every sick person—woman, man, or child—wants researchers to find new ways to make him or her well or to improve the quality of life for those who are disabled, regardless of whether the ailment is common or rare, acute or chronic, life-threatening or self-limiting.

We must acknowledge that setting priorities at NIH is an awesome task. Not only must the leadership of NIH answer to the executive branch and to the U.S. Congress, it must work with all of its constituencies—scientists, health care providers, patients, voluntary health groups and patient advocates, and industry executives—before making its fateful decisions. The quality and quantity of excellent science that it has supported, the widespread respect for it in and out of government, and its favored position in the annual congressional appropriations process signify that, over time, NIH must be doing many things right. Yet, we must also acknowledge that the recent request from Congress that the Institute

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

of Medicine conduct an independent assessment of research priority setting at NIH and that the evaluation be completed within 6 months signifies, just as clearly, that there is at least a perception that some things are not right. It is apparent that some segments of the public, in general, and its representatives in Congress, in particular, are dissatisfied enough to ask for ways to improve the current process.

This committee was charged with examining four issues related to setting priorities at NIH: allocation criteria, the decision-making process, mechanisms for public input, and the impact of congressional directives. Despite the nearly impossible constraints imposed by the study's time line, we took this broad charge seriously. To grasp the approach that NIH currently uses, we heard in person from the director of NIH, most of the institute directors, and many of the directors of offices housed within the director's office. To understand the tensions surrounding public input, we held a full-day public meeting at which we received verbal and written testimony from patients, advocacy and interest groups, foundations, and professional societies. To understand Congress's rationale for requesting the study, we interviewed legislative aides from key offices. To expand our collective knowledge base, we reviewed many current and past publications relevant to our charge.

As we listened and deliberated, several things became clear to me. First, the country has extraordinarily high expectations of NIH. To some, NIH has become a virtual surrogate for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, being encouraged to expand its purview well beyond research. We heard from no one who wants to dismantle NIH; we heard from many who wanted their "cause" to be embraced by NIH; we heard from all that NIH must excel at everything it does because what it does is so important to the hopes and aspirations of people everywhere.

Second, there is a sense that NIH has evolved mechanisms for judging scientific opportunity and merit that surpass its capabilities for assessing and being influenced by public health needs. Estimating research spending by disease and developing metrics for spending according to disease burden (e.g., incidence, mortality, disability, and cost) must be done more systematically and more thoroughly than they are currently done because not doing so leads some to conclude, incorrectly I believe, that NIH cares more about curiosity than cure, more about fundamental science than clinical application.

Third, there is frustration on the part of some groups about not being listened to and heard by NIH. We heard repeatedly that some institutes, and particularly the Office of the Director, lack mechanisms for orderly, regular public input and outreach. As the authority of the director over priority setting has increased, the demand to influence that office has become louder.

Fourth, there is a lack of understanding about how NIH priority setting "works." NIH has not crafted simple communications that make its priority-setting processes as transparent as possible to its many publics. NIH has not developed

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

sufficient communications tools to satisfy people that allocation decisions are made on the basis of equity and justice, as well as scientific opportunity.

Each of these observations has been converted to recommendations that reflect the committee's consensus. Our recommendations address each of the committee's charges, but there is a single theme that runs through them. It is that NIH must revamp its approach to public input and outreach—at every level—without delay. This will strengthen the priority-setting process in many ways. It will underscore that openness is as important to the process as such other valued qualities as expertise, innovation, and objectivity. It will provide NIH leaders more ways to demonstrate that they share the public's view that NIH exists to improve health through research. It will enhance the public's understanding of the complexities of decision making at NIH. Finally, it will give Congress additional confidence that it can delegate priority setting to NIH leadership knowing that a broader range of views will be sought and welcomed before decisions are made.

I would like to thank the many people who have made it possible for this report to be completed on schedule: first and foremost, the members of the committee who met and overcame the many challenges of our difficult task with a commendable blend of experience, energy, collegiality, and wisdom; second, the staff of the Institute of Medicine, without whom we would have foundered; third, the leadership of NIH, who educated us about this agency; and fourth, and perhaps most important, the public, who reminded us of the purpose of NIH and of the democratic ideals that must permeate effective stewardship of a federal agency.

Leon E. Rosenberg, M.D.

Chair

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

Acronyms


ACD

Advisory Committee to the Director


DHHS

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


FIC

John E. Fogarty International Center

FY

fiscal year


IOM

Institute of Medicine


NCI

National Cancer Institute, NIH

NCRR

National Center for Research Resources, NIH

NEI

National Eye Institute, NIH

NHGRI

National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH

NHLBI

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH

NIA

National Institute on Aging, NIH

NIAAA

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIH

NIAID

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH

NIAMS

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH

NICHD

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH

NIDA

National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

NIDCD

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, NIH

NIDDK

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH

NIDR

National Institute of Dental Research, NIH

NIEHS

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH

NIGMS

National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NIMH

National Institute of Mental Health, NIH

NINDS

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH

NINR

National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH

NLM

National Library of Medicine, NIH

NSF

National Science Foundation


OMB

Office of Management and Budget


PHS

Public Health Service


R&D

research and development

RFA

request for application

RPG

research project grant

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×

Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 1998. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6225.
×
Page R16
Next: Executive Summary »
Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $46.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the single largest funder of health research in the United States, and research it has supported has been pivotal to the explosion of biomedical knowledge over the past century. As NIH's success has grown, so has pressure from advocacy groups and other members of the public to devote more spending to their health concerns. In response to a request from Congress, this IOM study reviewed NIH's research priority-setting process and made recommendations for possible improvement. The committee considered the:

Factors and criteria used by NIH to make funding allocations.

  • Process by which the funding decisions are made.
  • Mechanisms for public input.
  • Impact of congressional statutory directives on funding decisions.

Among other recommendations, the book recommends that NIH seek broader public input on decisions about how to spend its nearly $14 billion budget; it also urged the agency to create new Offices of Public Liaison in the Office of the Director and in each of the 21 research institutes to allow interested people to formally take part in the process.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!