A decision by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leaders to abolish one of the agency's institutes ran into little opposition today a key advisory board. A member of the board of directors asked if his fellow panelists should consider whether it is wise to abandon the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). But officials from the NIH and the chairman of the board brushed her question aside.
NIH leaders decided in December to abolish NCRR partly because of a clinical research program which constitute 40% of the budget would go to a new National Centre for the Advancement of Science Translational. The rupture proposed NCRR attracted hundreds of comments from researchers concerned with the fate of their programs, if they are moved to other institutes. Many, including an NIH institute director, asked why these programs can not stay together in a small NCRR.
Today, the Scientific Review Board of Management (SMRB), which was created by Congress to provide advice on the structure of NIH, met for 1 ½ hours by teleconference to hear updates on these two changes, the creation of the new center, which SMRB recommended, and the NIH plan to simultaneously dismantle NCRR. It features animal models of programs for major instruments to support minority institutions.
Given the "fair bit of anxiety out there" about NCRR split and that "the elimination of a center is also great change that the addition of a new, "SMRB should undertake" a true study in depth if NCRR should be essentially eliminated? "asked Thomas Kelly SMRB member of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City. And NIH considers the "possible simple approach and less disruptive" to let the remaining 60% of its programs intact within NCRR?
NIH deputy director Lawrence Tabak responded that its internal working group on NCRR concluded that if they were to start again, they would probably not NCRR program group in the same institute. Instead, the working group liked the idea of "creating new scientific opportunities" by putting the programs "more optimal juxtaposition programs" in other institutes.
Whether SMRB should study the issue more closely, Tabak said his working group did what the board would do, namely, he undertook "extensive consultation" with the scientific community through teleconferences, meetings, and review web site. (most of this took place after the NIH submitted a proposal to abolish NCRR the Department of Health and Human Services in December.)
comments Tabak seemed meet President SMRB Norman Augustine, who said Tabak "provided a sound response." The only other member SMRB expressing concern was Gail Cassell of Eli Lilly, who warned that the comparative medicine programs should stay together. (They are together in a new unit Tabak said infrastructure will be located in the NIH director's office.)
Neither there were major objections to break NCRR for eight public oral submissions. Instead, several patient groups welcomed the reorganization. Amy Comstock Rick of Parkinson scientific scolded Action Network "argue about matters of organization." If NIH wants Congress to give an increase, the community must present a "united front," she said.
The Congress may still want to influence the reorganization, however. Several senators have questioned the plan, as well as a staff member for a House of Representatives panel expenditures to approve the budget for the NIH reconfigured.
full reviews of Thomas Kelly are below.
I will couple points I want to ask you a question and perhaps raise a general discussion.
The first concerns the fact that I'm sure you're aware, there's a fair bit of anxiety out there in the scientific community about the redistribution of all NCRR programs and I understand it essentially means eliminating NCRR which is of course a major structural change to NIH. And I guess I raise a point of discussion potential since it is such a major structural change to NIH, eliminating a center is also great change that the addition of a new, and I do not think has SMRB had a very long and deep discussion. I guess the really talked working group at some length, but we have certainly not give the same kind of in-depth analysis we have done for the question NIDA and NIAAA [merging NIH's two substance abuse institutes].
So the question is whether it would be appropriate for the SMRB to undertake a genuine thorough study whether NCRR should be essentially eliminated. So a kind of general question. The other is the question of whether it was given by the fact that the only thing that should be removed from NCRR for the new center are CTSAs I think there seems to be a simpler and less disruptive approach would was to leave all other programs in place in NCRR instead of distributing them. And I wondered if this plan of action was envisaged.
0 Komentar