National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

EVALUATION OF THE

Congressionally Directed
Medical Research Programs

REVIEW PROCESS

Committee on the Evaluation of Research Management by DoD
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP)

Board on the Health of Select Populations

Health and Medicine Division

A Report of

Images

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. HHSP233201400020B between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45001-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45001-2
Digital Object identifier: 10.17226/23652

Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Image

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Image

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations. Reports are peer reviewed and are approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other convening event. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and have not been endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE EVALUATION OF RESEARCH MANAGEMENT BY DOD CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED MEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS (CDMRP)

KENNETH W. KIZER (Chair), University of California, Davis

JAMES M. ANDERSON, Case Western Reserve University

MARJORIE A. BOWMAN, Wright State University

MARINA BROITMAN, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

CARL A. CASTRO, University of Southern California

KAY DICKERSIN, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

MAHA HUSSAIN, Northwestern University

VICKIE MAYS, University of California, Los Angeles

RELFORD (CHIP) PATTERSON, Comprehensive Health Services, Incorporated

BARBARA J. TURNER, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

MYRL WEINBERG, National Health Council (Retired)

Study Staff

ROBERTA WEDGE, Study Director

ANNE STYKA, Program Officer

HEATHER L. CHIARELLO, Research Associate

NICOLE FREID, Senior Program Assistant

JULIE WILTSHIRE, Financial Officer

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of the independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following for their review of the report:

Lars F. Berglund, University of California, Davis

John Feussner, Medical University of South Carolina

Melissa Forsythe, Livingston, Texas

Uta Francke, Stanford University School of Medicine

Gary Gackstetter, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

Barbara Hempstead, Weill Cornell Medical College

Melissa Kaime, Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center

Story Landis, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Retired)

Wilbur K. Milhous, University of South Florida College of Public Health

Amy Comstock Rick, Food and Drug Law Institute

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Martin A. Philbert, University of Michigan, and Philip J. Cook, Duke University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Acknowledgments

This report was greatly enhanced by the participants at the open sessions held by the committee as well as by others who participated in informal data-gathering interviews with the study staff. Additionally, a great deal of information was provided by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) leadership and staff in response to committee questions throughout the course of the study.

The committee would like to acknowledge the efforts of those who gave presentations and who provided materials to the committee during the course of the study’s information-gathering period (in alphabetical order): Fred Atkin (Action to Cure Kidney Cancer), Linda Bambrick (CDMRP staff), Carolyn Best (American Urological Association), Timothy Brindle (Department of Veterans Affairs), Col. Carlton Brinkley (CDMRP staff), Kelley Brix (Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency), Ron Brown (National Gulf War Resource Center), Lucie Bruijn (ALS Association), Deborah Cory-Slechta (University of Rochester School of Medicine), Angel Davey (CDMRP staff), Colleen Gaydos (Senate Committee on Appropriations staff), Theresa Gleason (Department of Veterans Affairs), Amelie Gubitz (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), Anthony Hardie (Veterans for Common Sense), Rogene Henderson (Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute), Lyn Jakeman (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), Howard M. Kipen (Rutgers University School of Public Health), Audrey Kusiak (Department of Veterans Affairs), Robin Levy (Lymphoma Research Foundation), Bryan Lewis (Action to Cure Kidney Cancer), Kristy Lidie (CDMRP staff),

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Carlos Maldonado (Department of Veterans Affairs), Beverly Michaels (CDMRP staff), Debora Moritz (tuberous sclerosis advocate), Jill Morris (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), Denise Nichols (Gulf War illness advocate), Col. Wanda Salzer (Director, CDMRP), Ray Santullo (CDMRP staff), Gayle Vaday (CDMRP staff), Frances Visco (National Breast Cancer Coalition), and Rick Weidman (Vietnam Veterans of America).

The committee also greatly appreciates the contributions of the hundreds of former peer and programmatic reviewers who anonymously responded to the committee’s solicitation of input. The information that was provided by all of those mentioned above helped to set the stage for fruitful committee discussions.

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACS

American Cancer Society

ALS

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

BCRP

Breast Cancer Research Program

CDMRP

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs

COI

conflict of interest

DHA

Defense Health Agency

DMRDP

Defense Medical Research and Development Program

DoD

Department of Defense

DPCPSI

Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (NIH)

eBRAP

electronic biomedical research application portal

eRA

electronic research administration

GAO

Government Accountability Office

IOM

Institute of Medicine

JPC

joint program committee

NIH

National Institutes of Health

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
ORD

Office of Research and Development (VA)

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

PTSD

posttraumatic stress disorder

RePORTER

Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH database)

SRO

scientific review officer (peer review contractor staff)

USAMRAA

U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity

USAMRDC

U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command

USAMRMC

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

VA

Department of Veterans Affairs

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23652.
×
Page R14
Next: Summary »
Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The medical research landscape in the United States is supported by a variety of organizations that spend billions of dollars in government and private funds each year to seek answers to complex medical and public health problems. The largest government funder is the National Institutes of Health (NIH), followed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Almost half of DoD’s medical research funding is administered by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP).

The mission of CDMRP is to foster innovative approaches to medical research in response to the needs of its stakeholders—the U.S. military, their families, the American public, and Congress. CDMRP funds medical research to be performed by other government and nongovernmental organizations, but it does not conduct research itself. The major focus of CDMRP funded research is the improved prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases, injuries, or conditions that affect service members and their families, and the general public. The hallmarks of CDMRP include reviewing applications for research funding using a two-tiered review process, and involving consumers throughout the process. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process evaluates the CDMRP two-tiered peer review process, its coordination of research priorities with NIH and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and provides recommendations on how the process for reviewing and selecting studies can be improved.

  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!