Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, NIH, and Co-Chair of the NCRR Task Force, will host conference calls this week with grantees and others who are interested in NCRR programs to discuss the Task Force’s straw model. Please join any of the discussions that may be relevant to you to share your comments and ask questions.
Call schedule and Dial-in information:
- Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) – January 19, 1:00-2:00 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 888-790-1819; Passcode: TABAK
- Research Centers in Minority Institutes (RCMI) – January 19, 2:15-3:15 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 888-324-8507; Passcode: RCMI
- Institutional Development Award (IDeA) – January 20, 3:00 -4:00 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 888-324-8507; Passcode: IDEA
- Biomedical Technology Research Centers (BTRC) – January 20, 4:15-5:15 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 800-779-3405; Passcode: BTRC
- Primate Centers – January 21, 12:00-1:00 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 800-779-3405; Passcode: PRIMATE
- Science Education Partnership Awards (SEPA) – January 21, 4:15-5:15 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 800-779-3405; Passcode: SEPA
- General Call – January 24, 2:00-3:00 pm (EST)
- Dial-in: 1-800-779-3405; Passcode: GENERAL CALL
I am PI of the SEPA-supported program Alaska Biomedical Partnership for the Research and Education Pipeline (AK BioPREP) and also Outreach Director for the Alaska INBRE, both NCRR funded. These programs work closely together; their synergy plus that derived from associating with the COBRE Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) and the Special Neuroscience Research Program (SNRP) in Alaska have been very important. Faculty hired by these programs all have research program, labs, staff and students now working on questions that previously could not have been addressed in Alaska.
When I began as Outreach Director in 2003 and went to high schools and villages around Alaska, talking about “biomedical research” and “NIH” I was met with laughs, blank stares and comments about how students would have to go “Outside” (to the continguous 48 states) to do such things. Now, after 8 years of INBRE and 2 of BioPREP, we have high school students in remote areas doing wet bench genetics investigations and eagerly coming to campus in the summer to work in the research labs, then continuing into college and grad school. One Alaska Native student who participated in the summer program for high school students said “I’m a freshman in the Biology program now here at UAF, I got a job working as a student assistant in the … lab where I had originally worked in for my RAHI [SEPA-funded] mentorship. I just got my first research grant, allowing me to develop microsatellite loci for the Alaska Black Fish; I’m really loving science.”
The SEPA program is all about introducing students, teachers and the general public to science and biomedical research. The Office of Science Education, from the web site, appears to be focused on helping NIH scientists talk and work with K-12 students and teachers and the public. The objectives are related but not identical. I very much hope that the SEPA approach to science education and pipeline programs will not be lost when the two programs merge. SEPA has developed valuable resources that should not be lost as its management is moved to another office. For example, the SEPA website gives access to an extensive collection of program evaluation material. Moreover, the “family” feeling of the SEPA programs that Tony Beck has fostered nationwide is unique in my experience and the support, synergy, and mentoring among programs make all of us more efficacious.
Please consider these issues. SEPA and INBRE work closely together in Alaska; whatever the final configuration of erstwhile NCRR-funded programs, SEPA and INBRE should remain close-knit partners.
Dear Dr. Tabak:
The American College of Laboratory Medicine (ACLAM), an organization representing 964 veterinarians with specialized training and experience focused on biomedical research, is excited about the potential advantage to NIH-funded research that is inherent in the formation of the new National Center for Advancing Translational Medicine (NCATM). However, the dissolution of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) raises serious concerns regarding the future disposition of the program components currently supported by NCRR. We are particularly concerned about the fate of NCRR’s Division of Comparative Medicine (DCM), which has been a critical resource for biomedical research utilizing animal models.
Funding administered through the DCM is crucial to NIH-supported research leading to new therapies.. Through a variety of funding mechanisms, DCM support serves to enhance the overall quality of science, facilitating well-characterized, high-quality, disease-free animals as well as the very specialized animal research facilities required to maintain these animals. A broad array of animal models that contribute importantly to the National research effort is dependent on this funding, as are opportunities for comparative medicine training, which is needed to assure the future availability of individuals with sufficient experience in comparative medicine to participate in animal-based research. The importance of comparative medicine to overall progress in biomedical research is emphasized in the summary of the 2005 NRC report from the Committee on the National Needs for Research in Veterinary Science. In fact, one section of the report’s summary is specifically entitled “Comparative Medicine” and it reads in part:
“Research in comparative medicine is invaluable for the overall medical research enterprise and for the improvement of animal health…Continuous progress in biomedical research will depend on our ability to develop and refine animal models to advance biomedical research, to preserve valuable models, and to improve methods for developing genetically engineered animal species other than the mouse to advance understanding of select diseases.”
It is important to recognize that DCM is currently the main NIH division focused on enhancing the capabilities mentioned in the last sentence of that NRC conclusion. The future ability of NIH ICs to aggressively advance translational research will be critically dependent on having a resource functioning (as DCM does now) to actively sustain high quality animal-based research.
The members of ACLAM are concerned that as the reorganization proceeds, the vital resources currently administered through DCM could be inadvertently compromised. These are not resources that are committed to a single NIH categorical institute but resources that broadly support the research of all ICs. Most modern advances in biomedical science have been predicated by animal-based research, but in many cases the clinical application of the initial discovery-focused research is not readily apparent. To accomplish the goals and mission of DCM, we believe that it is important for DCM to remain as a unified entity under the direction of a single IC.
However, in the “straw model” that has recently been posted, it appears that the initial proposed action is to split up DCM, with the primate-related resources being incorporated into a somewhat vague interim unit, and the majority of resources for other species being moved to NIGMS. Because of the similarities in the goals, objectives, expertise, and administration between the primate resources and the remainder of DCM, it is our opinion this proposed split would be a very inefficient solution that would lead to a duplication of administrative resources, the loss of a cohesive identity for the Division, and a dilution of the attempts to maintain excellence in these unique programs. As the working group continues to consider options, we would urge that this split be reconsidered.
To summarize, we strongly recommend that the NIH Division of Comparative Medicine remain a unified resource that supports the research of all NIH ICs. We urge NIH to carefully consider to which IC the unified DCM should be transferred. NCATM may be an appropriate home, as might be NIGMS, OD or the proposed “interim” unit, but the most important point is that DCM remain a strongly supported and unified entity that will advance the critical research of all NIH ICs by providing excellent animal model support and thus promoting continued progress in the discovery of disease mechanisms, diagnosis, treatment and cures.
Sincerely,
Ravi Tolwani DVM PhD
President, ACLAM
This is to advocate for maintaining the RCMI and IDeA programs within the same umbrella/institute at NIH. The concerted, combined efforts of these programs, as well as other NCRR infrastructure funding mechanisms have been instrumental in the development and expansion of research at minority serving institutions. This in turn resulted in increased productivity and research funding, as well as support for scientific interactions. Infrastructure is an essential component for research excellence and ought to be managed as a priority.
The following should be considered when deciding the relocation of the RCMI Program at the National Institutes of Health:
1. Synergies between the RCMI Program and the IDeA Program have been key in the growth and development of both at the University of Puerto Rico. One important factor for this successful interaction has been the coexistence of these programs within the same NIH center (NCRR until today). This facilitates coordination and innovation of funding initiatives at the federal level while fostering inter-program collaboration at funded institutions. Thus, these programs should be kept within the same institute or center.
2. The mandate of the RCMI Program is the development of institutional infrastructure to support research capacity. Thus, it is crucial for the RCMI Program to be located at a NIH unit with a similar mandate, that has a proven record in this type of endeavor, and whose mission is compatible to that of the RCMI Program as an infrastructure development institute or center.
3. Relocation of the RCMI Program may have unwanted consequences in the growth and development of the RCMI Program. To name just two of them,
a. There is the potential that the new institute or center will at least maintain the same level of funding once budget is reallocated to the new parent unit.
b. An institute or center with limited experience in funding research infrastructure may manage the RCMI Program as an appendix to its already existing portfolio of programs, which are already tied in to the institute’s or center’s mandate. At least just by organizational inertia, the RCMI Program may become stalled.
Transcending issues specific to the RCMI Program, the planned reorganization, eliminating the National Center for Research Resources, represents a major change in the conceptualization of NIH research funding operations. Most major enterprises and organizations, have units whose sole function is to provide infrastructural elements to support its categorical, task/mission oriented, components. It is still not evident how NIH will become a more coordinated, efficient research enterprise without an infrastucture-focused element. This approach may lead to unnecessary duplication of resources that are assigned to specific research areas and projects instead of creating facilities shared by projects in diverse research areas.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on this most important issues.
José G. Conde, MD, MPH
Professor, School of Medicine
Associate Director, RCMI Program
UPR Medical Sciences Campus
Hello,
Where can one access the recorded conference calls that have taken place to date?
Thank you.
Christopher Stanley
RxGen, Inc.
I also have run a clinical research site in Clearwater Florida for the past 8 years, and have been involved in clinical trials for the past 13 years. We at Innovative Research of West Florida, Inc. would like to help in any way possible with this exciting development. We have a 5 bed phase 1 unit, and a 10,000 square foot research site/ Internal Medicine practice. We have done multispecialty phase 1-4 studies and have much experience. I would also be happy to serve in any way possible in the future. Our website is http://www.innovativeresearchfl.com/
Let me know if I can help!
Sincerely,
Tracey Osborn, MBA, BSN
Innovative Research of West Florida, Inc.
1573 South Fort Harrison Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Phone: 727-584-6368 x 201
Fax 727-584-8772
traceyo@innovativeresearchfl.com
http://www.innovativeresearchfl.com
I have been in the pharm. research industry since 1990, I am an indepentdent research site in Kettering Ohio. I have seen the ups and downs over the years. I have to say this is the worst I have seen or been involved in.
I would be very interested in working on the ground floor of this project the NIH is looking into. I have been in the industry and think that I could offer some insite into this matter.
I would like to talk with someone on how Wells Institute can become a site to do research as well as a part of this new venture.
Thanks,
Paula Wells RN
Wells Institute for Health Awareness
513 E. Stroop Rd
Kettering Oh 45429
Paula@wellsinstitute.com
937-293-2175
Dear Dr. Tabak:
I hereby express my support for keeping together the RCMI and IDeA programs. Jointly, these programs are instrumental for providing the research infrastructure and expanding the capacity of minority institutions and states that historically have not received significant levels of competitive research funding. At the University of Puerto Rico, the RCMI and IDeA programs have partnered to provide the infrastructure necessary for conducting basic, translational and clinical research, developing a competitive workforce, and encouraging students to pursue a biomedical career. As an example, since the inception of the RCMI Program in 1986, the UPR Medical Sciences Campus has increased its external research funding from $5 million to $51 million in 2010. These research efforts have resulted in over a 1,200 publications in peer review journals.
I still hope that in its final recommendation the NCRR Task Force takes into consideration these achievements as well as the strong partnerships and collaborations that sustain these efforts. Success in research is highly dependent on the facilities, technologies and training that investigators possess to translate research from basic discovery to improved patient care. This has been the mission of NCRR. I am optimistic that a mechanism will be identified to preserve such an important duty.
Respectfully,
Emma Fernández-Repollet, PhD
Professor and Director RCMI Program
University of Puerto Rico
Medical Sciences Campus
Will there be a conference call for the non primate resources of The NCRR Division of Comparative Medicine, which has a large stakeholder community?
Muriel Davisson
The Jackson Laboratory
Yes, Dr. Tabak will host a call to focus on the programs that were not included in the calls this week. It will be scheduled for next week; the details will be posted here. Please check back.
How one conceptualizes the idea of translational research may be a key issue to cost effectiveness. If you think of it as an organizational structure where research is handed off to an institute for translational research at the federal, state or institutional level – it has a high overhead. If you think of it more as policy making and funding support for further development of promising research than you take advantage of existing infrastructure and provide a mechanistic approach for further development. This enables organic growth from research to products.
Dear Dr Tabak:
Thank you for your presentation on the fate of RCMI programs. I hope that you will quickly clarify the proposed time frame for the re-aggregation of the IDeA and the RCMI programs, which are related. I hope also that the committee will quickly overcome the challenge that the cost of the IDeA program might prohibit that re-aggregation in a single institute, especially if the changes are revenue-neutral.
The RCMI program demonstrably improves the research capacity of the RCMI institutions and their collaborators. For example our own Center has made major breakthroughs (cited by NCRR) in the improved resolution of photo-acoustic imaging over pulse-echo ultrasound of the eye, and in the sensitive detection of cancer cells without biomarkers using microchips. Our improved infrastructure has also enabled novel strategies for disease prevention. This enhanced capacity has allowed our basic research center to participate as full partners in a CTSA funded collaboration.
Robert Dottin
Director, Center for Study of Gene Structure and Function
Hunter College of the City University of New York
Is there any data supporting the notion that translational research is an effective program that is resulting in therapeutic products with a return of investment that compares with Biotech & Pharma? Much of the funding is being used for buildings and infrastructure. Is this an effective use of funds for translation from bench to clinic?