A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Critique
6 Critique
Pages 86-96
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 86... ...
It includes participation of consumer representatives on peer review panels at both levels of grant application review while a flexible management framework allows relatively quick changes in direction. These unique features have positive aspects because they connect the BCRP with highly interested constituents and provide great opportunity to respond to new research breakthroughs.
|
From page 87... ...
The IP took its original direction from the 1993 IOM report and subsequently created a charter describing its official designation, objective and scope, purpose, duration of terms, tasks and duties, panel composition, conditions of panel appointment, method of selection of the chair, executive committee and subcommittees, recommendations, and the types and due dates of reports. The committee believes that the IP represents a new and imaginative concept in planning and monitoring a research grants program.
|
From page 88... ...
If the BCRP evolves into an ongoing program with stable funding, then consideration should be given to establishing a permanent advisory committee to the Army, independent of the IP and contractors, to assure that the program continues to function at its current high level. Funds for breast cancer research were originally requested by the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC)
|
From page 89... ...
This situation could be vastly improved if standing review panels were created. The advantages of standing review panels include greater reviewer familiarity with the procedures and aims of the program and members of such panels can provide historical perspective and continuity in judging applications in relation to the quality and content of prior proposals.
|
From page 90... ...
To improve lines of communication, the PMT established an Executive Secretary Liaison Subcommittee of the IP to develop an orientation on the new program vision for executive secretaries and other peer review participants in order to foster a shared program vision between peer and programmatic review agencies (USAMRMC, 1996c)
|
From page 91... ...
The IP refines program focus and investment strategy, makes funding decisions on individual applications, and carries out oversight of the entire program. The 24-member IP includes internationally recognized leaders in their fields investigators in basic and clinical sciences, physicians, epidemiologists, health care delivery specialists, and three to four consumer activists or other concerned laypersons knowledgeable in breast cancer issues.
|
From page 92... ...
After the FY 1993/1994 and FY 1995 experience, the IF issued a more focused statement in May 1996 stating that the mission of the BCRP should be to eradicate breast cancer, and the vision of the BCRP was to expedite and facilitate breakthroughs in breast cancer research, support innovative, risktaking research demonstrating solid scientific judgment, and support research that will translate into advances in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This focused vision was translated into the decision to limit research grants to either 5-page IDEA applications with no preliminary data required, or large multidisciplinary research programs of"translational" potential (RTP)
|
From page 93... ...
At this time, for example, the USAMRAA does accept institutional assurances regarding human subjects, animal welfare, and environmental and safety compliance. However, applicants are required to submit to an independent, and duplicative, set of military specific procedures.
|
From page 94... ...
Not only do consumer participants return to their communities and report about the peer review process thus fostering understanding and communication between scientists and the general public, their presence during the review serves to remind basic scientists of the human component of this disease and the need for more research on psychological and social aspects, and health care delivery. The committee questions why the Army uses different definitions for "consumer" for the IP and scientific review panels (see Chapter 4~.
|
From page 95... ...
Neither type of research should be restricted by artificial time lines and definitions, such as "timely translatability." The committee agrees with the decision to eliminate support for infrastructure enhancement after the first funding cycle in view of low-scoring applications and support available from other sources. The committee views continuation of funding training and recruitment awards at all levels as an important investment strategy toward the mission.
|
From page 96... ...
As discussed in Chapter 5, the 1993 IOM committee recommended that funds not be restricted to proposals that deal solely or directly with breast cancer, but, instead, that funds be allocated to support the best proposals as long as the work is relevant to at least one of the six fundamental questions that the committee identified. It explained that many of the discoveries that have benefited breast cancer patients arose from research that did not address breast cancer directly.
|
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.