NIH Extramural Center Programs Criteria for Initiation and Evaluation (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix F: Summaries of NIH Selected Center Program Evaluations Previously Conducted by NIH
Appendix F: Summaries of NIH Selected Center Program Evaluations Previously Conducted by NIH
Pages 195-212
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 195... ...
Institute of Medicine Report, "A Stronger Cancer Centers Program: Report of a Study" (1989) In 1988 the Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying the 1989 appropriations bill requested that NIH contract with IOM for a study on "the present state of the Cancer Centers Program and its funding and organizational needs required to fulfill the role established for cancer centers in the 1971 National Cancer Act." The Senate committee had heard increasing complaints about the flat growth in the amount of NCI funds going to cancer centers because NCI leadership apparently wanted to deemphasize the role of centers relative to other mechanisms in the national 195
|
From page 196... ...
. The report noted that scientists at the 59 centers with NCI core grants received nearly half the competitive research project grants awarded by NCI and substantial amounts of peer-reviewed funding from other NIH institutes, the National Science Foundation, and other research sponsors, and as a result, they had been involved in many of the important advances in cancer research over the preceding 20 years.
|
From page 197... ...
The report took "comprehensive" to mean that the centers should perform basic, clinical, and population-based research, and it recommended that NCI provide a different mechanism for funding the education and training of biomedical researchers and health care professionals, public information services, and community service and outreach. Consistent with this view, it further recommended that centers be reviewed primarily for the quality of science and the value added by the Cancer Center core grants to the advancement of excellence in the areas of cancer research supported by NCI.
|
From page 198... ...
The working group pointed out that this rate of growth is unsustainable, and it was also concerned about possible duplication of activities already funded by P30 grants, particularly because 41 of the 44 P50 awards were to institutions with P30 core grants. The report recommended slowing the growth of SPOREs, increasing the budget of the Cancer Center Program, and mandating that SPOREs located at a cancer center should function as a component of that center.
|
From page 199... ...
Limitations of the MAMDC Program included a focus restricted to arthritis and musculoskeletal research and an artificial requirement for combining basic science research and EEHSR components. · In some cases, P50 Specialized Centers of Research (SCORs)
|
From page 200... ...
The Working Group concluded its review by affirming the importance of the various centers programs to the mission of NIAMS. It urged continued support, albeit at a more limited level, of a variety of funding mechanisms for centers, across the breadth of NIAMS.
|
From page 201... ...
In addition, the principal investigators of the 39 multiple project grants active in 1997 were solicited individually for their views. The report recommended that NIDCD adopt a limited version of the multiple project center grant (P50)
|
From page 202... ...
. It cited examples where CFARs had successfully leveraged developmental funds to increase investigatorinitiated R01 funding among junior faculty members; enhanced faculty recruitment; refocused existing faculty not currently engaged in AIDS research on HIV-related issues; and generated significant local institutional support for the center program.
|
From page 203... ...
DBSB recruited six scientific experts to assist in conducting the evaluation, two of whom were affiliated with institutions receiving NICHD center support. The scientists reviewed data summarizing the fiscal and scientific scope of the Centers Program as it existed currently; interviewed key constituencies concerning the existing and potential functions of infrastructure support in the population sciences; reviewed comments received by the branch regarding the Centers Program; and reviewed information on alternative models of structuring infrastructure support programs in the behavioral and social sciences.
|
From page 204... ...
For example, they called for seed money programs to quickly provide money for pilot projects, giving centers permission to support noncenter scientists doing relevant population research; and a stronger link to graduate training. They came out strongly against "sunset" rules, instead offering several suggestions to improve competition in the application/renewal process.
|
From page 205... ...
These comments raised concerns that the SCOR mechanism may not be fulfilling its intended translational research function, and thus it may not be distinguishable in practice from the P01 program project grant mechanism. In response to these findings, the NHLBI director appointed a SCOR "reinvention committee" of extramural program staff, which was charged with evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the SCOR mechanism and recommending ways to enhance the clinical focus and utility in SCOR programs.
|
From page 206... ...
The committee made several suggestions designed to provide more weight to clinical research in the review of individual applications, recommended that the budget cap for individual awards be raised even if it meant fewer awards, and supported the five-year award length and the outside review and sunset provisions of the SCOR programs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING In 1984 Congress directed the National Institute on Aging (NIA)
|
From page 207... ...
The committee suggested expanding the National Alzheimer's Cell Repository located at Indiana University to increase its capacity to bank cell lines, DNA, and serum from the centers as well as other sources. Another suggestion was that increased use of the frozen or fixed postmortem brain tissue collected and stored at all centers for collaborative studies coordinated by NACC using pooled samples and data could increase statistical power.
|
From page 208... ...
. The center directors identified a range of benefits of the centers program, including: · Enabling nurse researchers to move from relatively small, exploratory studies to more sophisticated "big science" intervention studies; · Defining new areas of nursing research; · Recruiting new faculty within a particular research area and recruiting graduate students and postdoctoral fellows; · Using the centers as a research dissemination vehicle; · Developing new evidence-based practice models; · Bringing the school of nursing into the larger campus or university by bridging gaps between disciplines, departments, and faculty; · Giving faculty members a vehicle to take risks that previously might not have been feasible; · Strengthening and expanding community linkages; and · Leveraging more research funding from the university.
|
From page 209... ...
Many of the 10 U24 "exploratory centers" found it difficult to meet these ambitious goals, and as a result, when the U24 CAM centers reached the end of their funding cycles, the goals for the center program were revised and a different funding mechanism was adopted. NCCAM's presentday Research Centers Program employs P50 specialized center of research grants, which provide more funds ($1.5 million annually versus the $450,000 allotted to the earlier U24 centers)
|
From page 210... ...
In response, NCCAM restructured its center program to consist of three activities, "each designed to meet a different need": Centers of Excellence for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine funded by P01 grants; Developmental Centers for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine funded by U19 cooperative agreements; and International Centers for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine funded by R21 grants.3 Additional panel recommendations for future NCCAM centers included: · More basic science research in CAM; · Opportunities for peer-reviewed pilot research projects; · Extending research support and infrastructure to noncenter investigators conducting related research elsewhere; · Standardized treatments and therapeutic approaches for large-scale clinical trials; · Career development opportunities for conventional and CAM clinicians who have completed their clinical training, especially junior faculty; and · Cost-effectiveness or health services research. Finally, panelists recommended that NCCAM carefully monitor the accomplishments of future centers and continue to support only those with exemplary research records.
|
From page 211... ...
1996. Report of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Centers Program Review Group.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.