Funding Health Sciences Research A Strategy to Restore Balance (1990) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Policy Overview and Recommendations
7 Policy Overview and Recommendations
Pages 162-208
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 162... ...
This growth and development has been nurtured by a unique mixture of research sponsors: the federal government, state governments, private foundations and voluntary health agencies, and corporations. This multifaceted support system has invested large amounts of resources into building an unequaled health research infrastructure.
|
From page 163... ...
Beyond the role of the federal government, the committee believes that better inter-sectoral communication among the government, indusay, and private nonprofit sponsors of health sciences research is necessary to meet this challenge. Patterns and Policies of Federal Health Sciences Support Federal support for basic research has been based on the following five principles: 1.
|
From page 164... ...
Research Community Perceptions The committee closely analyzed federal funding trends and policies for health sciences research over the past two decades. Additionally, the committee reviewed the limited data available on the contributions from other governmental sources, private foundations and voluntary health agencies, and corporate research sponsors.
|
From page 165... ...
This dramatic growth in the number of investigatorinitiated research project applications reflects, in part, a surge in research opportunities as well as the growing practice of applying for multiple grant awards. Simultaneously, the approval rate for grant applications by study sections has risen steadily, from 70 percent in the mid 1970s to nearly 95 percent.
|
From page 166... ...
In response to these concerns, Congress, NIH, and ADAMHA agreed to a policy that established a minimum number of new and competing research project grant applications to be funded annually. Beginning in fiscal year 1981 and ending in 1988, minimum numbers of new and competing awards were established between NIH/ADAMHA and the congressional appropriations committees.
|
From page 167... ...
Further Constraints and Crises in the 1980s "Extended Duration of Awards" Policy. Although NIH and ADAMHA were increasing the numbers of new and competing awards through the stabilization policy, the research community felt that the average 3-year award period for traditional research project grants (R01)
|
From page 168... ...
Although increasing grant duration does have a stabilizing effect on research careers, it also obligates NIH and ADAMHA appropriations further into the future. This policy of lengthening award periods, coupled with the phenomenon of increasing average award size, reduces the funds available for meeting annual targets of new and competing grant awards.
|
From page 169... ...
The committee concludes that steps must be taken now to maintain the pool of career scientists by recruiting and retaining the best possible candidates. Resource allocation policies fostering health research careers will
|
From page 170... ...
Although the extent of the needs for construction, repair, and renovation of health sciences research facilities is difficult to determine, estimates run as high as $8 billion. The committee believes the long-term decline in federal programs for research facility construction and equipment renewal is partially responsible for deterioration of the nation's research laboratories.
|
From page 171... ...
This environment should · identify and encourage young, talented individuals to pursue health research careers; · provide stable research support for talented scientists throughout their careers; · offer flexibility in allocating resources to foster creativity and meet changing demands; and · provide the modern laboratories and equipment necessary for scientific research and training. These characteristics, in turn, require effective coordination and leadership from the federal research agencies; competent, objective public and private sector administration; and responsiveness to the wishes of the American people through the political process.
|
From page 172... ...
The committee believes that while the scientific community must be held accountable for use of federal research funds, there has to be stable support and flexible policies to promote an optimal research environment. General Research Funding Guideline To place the existing research establishment into an economic perspective, the committee analyzed each component in terms of capital investment relative to its productive life expectancy.
|
From page 173... ...
· The total appropriations to all federal agencies receiving funds for health sciences research, including NIH and ADAMHA; the allocations within each institute of NIH/ADAMHA for research and training needs; and · the allocations within specific research program areas (generally, disease areas such as leukemia within the National Cancer Institute [NCI] or acute myocardial infarction within the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [NHLBI]
|
From page 174... ...
. Rebalancing of Health Sciences Research Funds The committee has conceded that allocation policies over the past two decades have forced an overall imbalance in the health sciences research system in which support for research project grants has been heavily favored at the expense of training and facilities.
|
From page 175... ...
1. No Real Growth: Even in the event of no average real growth in the health sciences research budget during the l990s, the committee recommends that funds for training the next generation of health scientists be increased incrementally from 4.20 to 5.75 percent of the total extramural research budget by 1995 and 6.75 percent by the year 2000.
|
From page 176... ...
Furthermore, this recommendation parallels that recommended in the NRC report Biomedical and Behavioral Research Scieniists: Their Gaining and Supply.i The minor shift of funds for extramural construction will merely allow the NIH to meet the most urgent facilities crises. The committee cannot recommend shifting larger proportions of federal health sciences research funds into the construction category at a time when an increasing number of research grants are not funded fully.
|
From page 177... ...
2. Two Percent Real Growth: In the event that the health sciences research budget grows, in real terms, an average of 2-percent annually, the committee again recommends that funds should be reallocated to training and facilities in the same proportions as in the zero growth scenariotraining funds increased incrementally from 4.20 to 5.75 percent of the total extramural research budget by 1995 and 6.75 percent by 2000, and extramural construction funds should be increased incrementally from the
|
From page 178... ...
Under this scenario, if the NIH budget grows by 2 percent annually in real terms (equivalent to the average annual real growth in the NIH budget throughout the 1980s) , the committee feels that portions of the net increase also should be shifted to training and facilities (Figures 7-1 and 7-3 and Appendix Able A-23~.
|
From page 179... ...
A 4 percent annual real growth in research funds would allow for a modest expansion of the research base over the next ten years. The net increase in available research funds would allow for the overall number of NIH research project grants to expand gradually, at a rate of about 1000 per year at 1988 grant sizes from the present 20,300 to about 29,400.
|
From page 180... ...
180 1 00 ear 80 40 20 PERCENT OFEXTR^~URALBUDGET of as as so g1 92 93 94 95 YE^R ~ Has Pro] Grts ~ Ctrs/Other Grts Construction ~ Contracts gG 97 98 gS 2000 ~ NOR Training MOUSE 7~ Pet ~ll~don ~ me NIH =1mmuml ~d~1 under a Cur at ~1 get ~a-.
|
From page 181... ...
Within these guidelines, the committee emphasizes that any funds to be redistributed should be drawn first from increases in the annual federal appropriations. However, even in the event of no real growth in the federal health research budget, the committee firmly endorses that incremental increases in training funds be reallocated from the nominal increases in the overall extramural budget (funds not adjusted for inflation)
|
From page 182... ...
devote additional attention to the needs of younger scientists. Increasing the Attraction of Health Science Research Careers for Undergraduates Recommendation 3.1: The committee recommends that programs be supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
|
From page 183... ...
Considerable discussion within the committee focused on establishing programs through NIH and ADAMHA to provide supplemental research grant monies to support the involvement of undergraduate students in research project grants similar to NSFs REU and RUI programs. Such programs would provide students with research experience while they are making career choices.
|
From page 184... ...
However, in the event of real growth in the federal research budget, various undergraduate health research training models will merit additional attention. Enhancing the Attractiveness of Health Science Careers for Women and Minorities Recommendation 3.2: The committee recommends that programs be developed by the federal government and the private sector that are designed to encourage more women and minorities to pursue careers in the health sciences.
|
From page 185... ...
. One variable in the committee's analysis is the extent of pre- and postdoctoral training support provided through research project grants.
|
From page 186... ...
These pressures probably have discouraged many physicians from remaining actively engaged in research and will have to be alleviated in order to interest more physicians in research careers. The committee believes that formal training for physician-scientists should include experience in scientific research protocol design, research
|
From page 187... ...
Frequent proposal writing to obtain small project grants can prevent young investigators from developing a solid, long-term line of investigation. Also, the committee believes that the transitional period between postdoctoral training and established scientist is the most crucial in getting young, creative minds into productive research careers.
|
From page 188... ...
A similar funding mechanism comparable to the FIRST award could be envisioned for midcareer scientists seeking additional training in a new field. IMPROVING THE RESEARCH PROJECT GRANTS SYSTEM 1b carry out this program of talent renewal without compromising the research base, the research project system needs, in the committee's view, some adjustments in order to preserve the existing pool of talented scientists as well.
|
From page 189... ...
The expanding realm of research opportunities, along with the increasingly sophisticated nature of research, has outstripped the effectiveness of the existing peer review process for determining priorities among the cluster of excellent grant applications. Whereas the original design of the peer review system operated well prior to the mushrooming of research opportunities in the 1970s, it is no longer reasonable to believe that minor differences in priority scores are accurate measures for all or nothing funding.
|
From page 190... ...
to fund grants on a sliding scale based on percentile ranking. The compression of grant applications receiving high- priority scores and the necessity of determining a single pay line for funding does not necessarily take into consideration the benefits that could be derived from those grant applications at the margins.
|
From page 191... ...
For example, funding, · those applications in the top decile would receive full funding, those applications in the second decile would receive 90 percent · those application in the third decile would receive 80 percent funding, and · those applications in the fourth docile would receive 70 percent funding. A proposal such as this would not be warranted in an environment where 50 percent of grant applications were funded.
|
From page 192... ...
Because the system is geared toward building on the accepted body of current knowledge, grant proposals that seek to explore tangential or contradictory theories may not fare well in the priority rankings. As funds have become more constrained, the committee believes that study sections and institutes have become even more disinclined to fund high-risk research proposals.
|
From page 193... ...
Multiple Grant Awards and Grant Sue The committee had lengthy discussions about principal investigators having multiple grant awards. The committee felt that, in many instances, investigators may need more than one grant for their research programs, but the committee also was concerned that large blocks of grant funds could be controlled by a few elite scientists, essentially closing the door on young scientists trying to get into the grant system.
|
From page 194... ...
As federally sponsored research programs have expanded, the committee believes some institutions have exploited federal resources as a means to enlarge their faculties by creating positions that rely entirely upon "soft" finding through research project grants. Many research institutions have been resourceful in finding additional institutional monies or philanthropic support for investigator salaries or research support.
|
From page 195... ...
The committee recommends that funding for the BRSG program should be maintained to allow universities to make decisions regarding their own faculty research needs and that creation of other block grants for developing and preserving scientific talent should be examined as well. However, funding for BRSG and similar grant programs at NIH and ADAMHA has been a continual target in budget cuts.
|
From page 196... ...
Direct Grant Program Recommendation 5.1: The committee recommends that Congress authorize and appropriate funds for a competitive matching fund construction program to renovate or construct health sciences research facilities, bearing in mind the increased costs of updating facilities to meet recently enacted regulations. Federal construction programs should focus on renovating existing space as well as funding new construction.
|
From page 197... ...
3. Private foundations, voluntary health organizations, and corpm rations should observe more closely the true costs of the research they sponsor, including the IDC portion.
|
From page 198... ...
This would allow research institutions to depreciate their buildings over 20 years rather than 50 and to depreciate equipment in 5 years rather than 15. The committee emphasizes that this policy change must not reduce the pool of funds available for direct costs and strongly urges universities and other research organizations to keep down the administrative portions of overhead.
|
From page 199... ...
ESTABLISHING AN ONGOING PROCESS FOR RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT Federal priorities for health sciences research are determined by the federal budget process through a complex system of interactions among the Executive Branch, Congress, the scientific community, industry, the public, and special interest groups. Ultimately, the federal agenda is set by the funds allocated by Congress through its authorizing, budgeting, and appropriating mechanisms and the recommendations made by Congress in report language.
|
From page 200... ...
These problems emphasize the need to review federal priorities and to coordinate federal health sciences research efforts. Integration of scientific priorities, as determined by peer review or other review mechanisms, with sound policy will lead to more effective resource allocation, thus improving the overall environment of health sciences research.
|
From page 201... ...
The committee should develop guidelines for federal research priorities by considering the following categories from the National Academy of Sciences report Federal Science and Technology Budget P,ionties: New Perspectives and Procedures as they apply to the health sciences: · research related to the sponsoring agency's mission; · health research activities of individual agencies that contribute to the overall science and technology enterprise (including the components of training, fundamental research, and infrastructure) ; · cross-cutting research activities of several agencies that contribute to broad national objectives given priority by the President and/or Congress; and activities that constitute significant health research initiatives by virtue of their considerable cost.
|
From page 202... ...
The vitality of the health sciences research enterprise depends not only upon federal government activities but the cooperation of all parties involved in health sciences research: universities and independent research institutes, as well as the private sector (foundations, voluntary health organizations, and corporations)
|
From page 203... ...
1b ensure that the balance of support among components of health sciences research is reestablished and maintained, this review would include evaluation of the relationships among support for research projects, the number of researchers being trained compared to the nation's needs and scientific opportunities, and the status of research facilities. This proposed committee should include representation from the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, state governments, academic research institutions, private foundations, and voluntary health agencies.
|
From page 204... ...
The science advisors in the White House OSTP, along with the proposed health FCCSET, should work closely with P CAST, NIH/ADAMHA administrators and advisory groups, and the proposed GUIRR-like committee to determine appropriate criteria for setting priorities among fields within the health sciences disciplines and for evaluating new initiatives. This would not be a means to rate competing disciplines but rather to evaluate scientific initiatives.
|
From page 205... ...
Although there are many positive aspects to a 2-year budget cycle for federal research agencies, the committee did not believe it was within its charge to recommend such a policy change. Improving Communication and Cooperation Among Research Sponsors Recommendation 6.3: The committee recommends that sponsors and researchers explore ways to share facilities and equipment among research institutions, industry, and government.
|
From page 206... ...
Traditionally, foundations and voluntary health agencies have been key supporters of interdisciplinary or innovative projects or of those projects that, for political or other reasons, are difficult to support with federal funds. Although nonprofit organizations will never have the resources to rival federal funding for health sciences research, they can respond to new lines of inquiry faster than the government bureaucracy allows.
|
From page 207... ...
Also, scientists need to help prevent overreaction to these unfortunate incidents that could easily stigmatize the field. The committee endorses the recommendations of a recent IOM study group report, The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences,4 which includes recommendations that scientists, individually, as well as through professional societies and other organizations, promote high ethical standards in the conduct of research.
|
From page 208... ...
1988. The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences.
|
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.