In what he admits was his most controversial move that National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins said today its decision on last month to create a new translation institute partly research by dismantling an existing NIH center. As Science Insider reported earlier this week, the plan has generated more than 1,100 comments. Many are researchers concerned with what will happen to their programs at the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), which finances all model animal resources large instruments to support programs for minority institutions.
Collins said he could not consult earlier with the community because of legal requirements. He must notify the first Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius of the reorganization, what he did last month. And Sebelius, who accepted the plan on 20 December, had to inform Congress of the proposed changes. These letters went to Congress HHS January 14; at press time, they were not released. Collins discussed their content in an interview excerpt here:
Q: What do the letters to Congress saying
FC: That there is a proposal to create a new entity to the NIH, the National Centre for the advancement of translational sciences (NCATS), and also a proposal to make existing programs within the [NCRR] and distribute them around other parts of the NIH.
Q: So you will have more than one F.C NCRR
:. This is true.
Q: As you know, people feel like this decision [to dismantle NCRR] was pushed through without much consultation. And you tell me that before you sent the recommendation to gather feedback. What's up with this
FC: First, the SMRB [Scientific Management Review Board, an NIH advisory board] public meeting for some 6 or 7 months talking about the creation of the new center for translation, certainly there was no secret about what it was about. Including the fact that, finally, they took a vote and approved in public. ...
Regarding the implications NCRR the SMRB not get engaged in any level of detail whereas other, of course, they recommended that the CTSAs [Clinical and Translational Science Awards] , the largest program within NCRR must move to the new center. ...
Regarding other aspects of NCRR, here's where we made our hands were tied by prescription. We are not allowed, and it is very clear in the legislation, to request public comment or make public announcements about a change in the organization of [NIH] until notification of Congress went ahead. ...
These letters are not out there 1 week, January 14. And at that time, we became able to start asking a public consultation on the plan.
And [NIH Deputy Director] Larry Tabak has been on three conference calls this week with hundreds of people absorbing and input, I think, very effective.
And again ... in terms of what we intend to do with NCRR, programs, it is very much a work in progress. ... It's not like we understood everything.
Q :. It does not make sense to me that you can not check on it until you have informed [Congress], but it means you have made the decision without consulting the community first
FC: Well well [laughs] this is the government, remember. It is very clear in the law that we can not really make announcements or ask for public participation until the Congress has been notified.
I grant you, it is a somewhat unfortunate circumstance. My best of all worlds, I would have liked the chance to have more discussion about it before this kind of announcement.
Q: It seems that even after calls to the conference, no one seems to be happy with what is going on, or very few people
FC :. Well, people are always buffeted by change, especially when it appears to happen quickly. ... I understand that the programs will continue. The people who run continue to be run. The idea is to try to look for adjacencies that make these programs even more successful.
Q: Can you explain this "interim infrastructure unit" [a unit in the NIH director's office where many NCRR programs would be placed]
FC: There are programs in NCRR where the exact best answer for where they should be located is going to be difficult to achieve a short period of time. So the idea of creating this temporary unit for these programs reside until it becomes easier to determine what is the right answer.
Q: this provisional unit could become a permanent part of the office of
FC: It is possible that there could be a very short list of programs that ultimately make the more sense to be in what we call DPCPSI [a division within the director's office]. ...
The expectation is that the vast majority of NCRR programs will land in other institutes or centers, many of them at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) because familiarity and the similarity between NIGMS and NCRR has always been pretty tight.
Q: Some people seem to think that you need to keep all these things together. Why not just keep them in a small NCRR
F.C:. I think you would tend to have gotten awfully small and perhaps not even the point of making much sense. ... You start to wonder why we created this kind of administrative support structure for such a small number of programs.
Q: But if you have all kept together [except for the CTSAs], it would not be this little
FC :. I think that even if the CTSAs was not driving this process, you could make a strong argument. For example, IMRT [a resource program for minority institutions] belong more properly to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities he does in NCRR.
Q: Do you also bound by the law limiting to 27 NIH institutes and centers
F.C :. This was not a factor in my own thinking, to be honest. I know some people assume that somehow what drives this process. I mean, obviously next year when the institutes of alcohol and drug abuse merge, it will not be a problem.
But I really think it's driven by scientific possibility, not that kind of numerical limits.
Q: You said last month that you thought you might be able to get some special authorization from Congress for 28 institutes for 1 year
FC :. And I did not even ask, because I do not think this is the right thing to do.
Q: What is the timetable for all this
FC: We need to present the model of the straw to SMRB, which will be on February 23. There has in the NIH plan to have final recommendations on how to restructure by the end of February.
Q: Would you agree that the creation of the new institute and break a new institute is the most controversial thing you've done as director of the NIH
FC: I guess I would agree with that. I mean, I will not apologize for wanting to see the scientific opportunities that relate to the approximate translation of a very bold way. I think the NIH director is called to study scientific opportunities that are not satisfied and understand how to make them happen, and sometimes it requires to move things forward at a rapid pace, and that affects a large number of people.
And shift is always painful, especially if people are not quite sure where it goes. So I understand the concern that exists.
But we will wait a year and see when it all took shape how people feel at this point. Will they say at this point that the projects or programs in NCRR have dealt a bad deal? I bet they will not. Will they say they are excited about the possibilities of translational science that take shape in the form of this new center? I bet they will.
You know, if I tried to do it 5 years ago, it would have been too soon. If I had waited five years from now, it would have been too late.
0 Komentar