Grants for research centers located in universities, medical centers, and other nonprofit research institutions account for about 9 percent of the National Institutes of Health budget. Centers are popular because they can bring visibility, focus, and increased resources to bear on specific diseases. However, congressional debate in 2001 over proposed legislation directing NIH to set up centers for muscular dystrophy research highlighted several areas of uncertainty about how to decide when centers are an appropriate research mechanism in specific cases. The debate also highlighted a growing trend among patient advocacy groups to regard centers as a key element of every disease research program, regardless of how much is known about the disease in question, the availability of experienced researchers, and other factors. This book examines the criteria and procedures used in deciding whether to establish new specialized research centers. It discusses the future role of centers in light of the growing trend of large-scale research in biomedicine, and it offers recommendations for improving the classification and tracking of center programs, clarifying and improving the decision process and criteria for initiating center programs, resolving the occasional disagreements over the appropriateness of centers, and evaluating the performance of center programs more regularly and systematically.

This report provides an assessment of NIH's programs for increasing the participation in biomedical science of individuals from underrepresented minority groups. The report examines, using available data and the results of a survey of NIH trainees, the characteristics and outcomes of programs at the undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, and junior faculty levels. The report provides recommendations for improving these programs and their administration. It also recommends how NIH can improve the data it collects on trainees in all NIH research training programs so as to enhance training program evaluation.

The report says that important organizational changes are needed at the National Institutes of Health to ensure the agency meets future challenges effectively. In particular, the report advises NIH to devote additional resources to innovative interdisciplinary research that reflects its strategic objectives and cuts across all agency's institutes and centers. The report recommends that Congress should establish a formal process for determining how specific proposals for changes in the number of NIH agencies and centers should be addressed.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research. Founded in the late 1870s, NIH has produced extraordinary advances in the treatment of common and rare diseases and leads the world in biomedical research. It is a critical national resource that plays an important role in supporting national security. The 310-acre Bethesda campus supports some 20,000 employees and contractors, and it contains more than 12 million square feet of facilities divided amongst nearly 100 buildings, including the largest dedicated research hospital in the world. The Bethesda campus supports some of the most sophisticated and groundbreaking biomedical research in the world. However, while some new state-of-the-art buildings have been constructed in recent years, essential maintenance for many facilities and the campus overall has been consistently deferred for many years. The deteriorating condition of NIH's built environment is now putting its ability to fulfill its mission at substantial risk. Managing the NIH Bethesda Campus's Capital Assets for Success in a Highly Competitive Global Biomedical Research Environment identifies the facilities in greatest need of repair on the Bethesda campus and evaluates cost estimates to determine what investment is needed for the NIH to successfully accomplish its mission going forward.

Grants for research centers located in universities, medical centers, and other nonprofit research institutions account for about 9 percent of the National Institutes of Health budget. Centers are popular because they can bring visibility, focus, and increased resources to bear on specific diseases. However, congressional debate in 2001 over proposed legislation directing NIH to set up centers for muscular dystrophy research highlighted several areas of uncertainty about how to decide when centers are an appropriate research mechanism in specific cases. The debate also highlighted a growing trend among patient advocacy groups to regard centers as a key element of every disease research program, regardless of how much is known about the disease in question, the availability of experienced researchers, and other factors. This book examines the criteria and procedures used in deciding whether to establish new specialized research centers. It discusses the future role of centers in light of the growing trend of large-scale research in biomedicine, and it offers recommendations for improving the classification and tracking of center programs, clarifying and improving the decision process and criteria for initiating center programs, resolving the occasional disagreements over the appropriateness of centers, and evaluating the performance of center programs more regularly and systematically.