Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
V. POSSIBLE SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION . The analysis on the preceding pages suggests a number of subjects for further assessment and deliberation. Some of those that seem especially important are listed below. o The future utility of the stabilization strategy for supporting competing NIH and ADAMHA research-project grants: the implications for continuing such a strategy of recent policy developments in Congress and the President's reservations about them; future priorities for other elements of the science base and how they might be affected by a commitment to a continued strategy for stabilizing budget support of research-project grants; the appropriate means for carrying out such a strategy (degree of flexibility, etc.), if it were to be continued. o ~ e biomedical research manpower DOO1 - ~ - the basic causes of the current increases in applications for NIH research Droiect grants; recent trends In applications trom new Investigators for NIH and ADAMHA research grants and in the loss of established investigators from the research grant systems of these agencies, and their consequences; the comparative priorities which should be assigned to the support of new and established investigators, alternative methods for implementing them, and the budget trade-offs involved. _ e o me integrity of the study-section process: the effects on study sections of the increasing volume of applications and competition for grant awards and of recent abrupt changes in budget decisions; the causes and policy implications of the escalating approval rates and priority scores of NIH and ADAMHA study sections, and possible measures for dealing with them. o Differences among the NIH institutes: - __ the degree to which major differences in award or success rates and paylines among the institutes reflect significant disparities in the allocation of resources; the desirability and feasibility of attempting to make significant reductions in these disparities. 31
