IF THE SUCCESS OF
THE REVIEWS OF NCI
AND NIMH IS ANY
GUIDE, THESE
REPORTS WILL
GENERATE SWEEPING
CHANGES, IMPROVING
OUR ORGANIZATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND CREATING
EXCITING NEW
RESEARCH ON THE
NIH CAMPUSES.
We are now close to the third anniversary of the release of the Marks-Cassell external advisory committee report on intramural research programs at NIH. We have implemented most of the report's recommendations—complying with the advice, for example, to strengthen our Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) review system and tenure process—and are now in the midst of the more detailed reviews of each individual intramural program mandated by the Marks-Cassell report. The purpose of these reviews is to help revitalize our venerated intramural research and training programs. Here's a midcourse update on this continuing endeavor.
In August of 1995, a committee chaired by Michael Bishop (UCSF) and Paul Calabresi (Brown University) completed their analysis of the NCI intramural program. Their far-reaching revitalization plans included reorganizing the NCI IRP so that division directors did not divide their time between intramural and extramural responsibilities, some consolidations at the Frederick Cancer Research Facility, restructuring of the NCI BSC review system to make the process more vigorous, reducing the percentage of the NCI budget devoted to intramural research, and establishing budgets for individual principal investigators (tenured and tenure-track). All of these recommendations have been implemented.
In January of 1997, a committee chaired by Herb Pardes (Columbia University) released a report on the NIMH IRP. Its recommendations are discussed in detail in this issue of The NIH Catalyst. Some of the major ones include restructuring NIMH labs and branches to maximize research and training opportunities for fellows and principal investigators and new recruitment—including the appointment of a permanent scientific director, which NIMH has not had for four years. The Pardes report also recommends that research at St. Elizabeth's be phased out as appropriate replacement facilities on the Bethesda campus become available. The report has been enthusiastically received by Steve Hyman, director of NIMH, and should be implemented within the next year or so.
To spped the review process a bit, we are now embarking on the simultaneous scrutiny of several IRPs. The current plan is to develop, in consultation with the institute directors, review groups consisting of the chair of the BSC, a representative from the institute's National Advisory Council, a representative from the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH, and subject-matter experts, including both clinical and basic researchers.
Such committees have been established for NIA, NIAMS, NIDA, and NIAAA, and each committee met for the first time earlier this year to initiate the review process for their respective IRPs. Reviews of NEI and NHLBI are in the early planning stages, and those of all of the remaining IRPs will follow within the next year.
Although each intramural program has specific problems and issues to be discussed, there are also certain overarching concerns that are currently not covered by our other intramural review processes. Our BSC reviews focus on the merit of individual scientific programs. Our five-year reviews of the scientific directors specifically address leadership skills.The new intramural reviews will look at the effectiveness of the BSC reviews, the organization of the programs (at the level of labs and branches), the laboratory facilities and physical location of the program (several of the programs currently under review are mostly situated off-campus), the balance between clinical and laboratory-based research, the balance between intramural and extramural funding, and the quality of training, mentorship, and career development within the program.
These committees will meet approximately four times over about eight months to develop recommendations for consideration by the NIH leadership. Staff of each institute will be contacted for comments about various aspects of intramural research, either written or presented orally to the committees. There will be a report on each program to the Advisory committee to the NIH Director, and each institute will be expected to develop appropriate implementation plans. If the success of the reviews of NCI and NIMH is any guide, these reports will generate sweeping changes, improving our organization and infrastructure and creating exciting new research on the NIH campuses.
I welcome your ideas about the review process and would especially like to hear about issues you think should be covered during these reviews. This issue of The Catalyst has a "call for catalytic reactions" devoted to intramural review; alternatively, you can send your thoughts to me by e-mail.
Deputy Director for Intramural Research