Page 346

tors for research support. Compared to a public agency, they generally have more opportunity to take proactive and flexible approaches to research support. CaP CURE, the organization founded to promote the development of therapies for prostate cancer, offers but one example of an innovative approach (Box 7.2).

REFERENCES

1. Association of American Medical Colleges. For the Health of the Public: Ensuring the Future of Clinical Research. Report of the AAMC Task Force on Clinical Research. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2000; 1.

2. Association of Medical Research Charities. The Association of Medical Research Charities Handbook 2000. Leicestershire, UK: Chartwell Press Ltd.; 1999.

3. Bodenheimer T. 2000. Uneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med.; 342: 1539-1544.

4. Bond EC, Peck MG, Scott M. The future of philanthropic support for medical/health research. How to Fund Science: the Future of Medical Research: A Workshop. February 14-16, 1999. The Aspen Institute, Wye, Maryland: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 5/26/99 from the World Wide Web: http//www.fundingfirst.; 1999.

5. Centerwatch. An Industry in Evolution. Boston: Centerwatch; 1999.

6. Gelband H. Institute of Medicine. A Report on the Sponsors of Cancer Treatment Clinical Trials and Their Approval and Monitoring Mechanisms. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1999.

7. Getz KA. AMCs Rekindling Clinical Research Partnerships With Industry. Boston: Centerwatch; 1999.

8. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. 1999. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med.; 340: 1881-7.

9. Institute of Medicine. Pellmar TC, Eisenberg L, editors. Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

10. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Hewitt M, Simone JV, eds. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

11. National Research Council. Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1998.

12. National Research Council. Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

13. National Research Council. COSEPUP. Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

14. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2000.

15. NCAB Subcommittee to Evaluate the National Cancer Program. Cancer at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress for the Nation. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1994.

16. Spilker B. The Future of Pharmaceutical Funding. How to Fund Science: the Future of Medical Research: A Workshop. February 14-16, 1999. The Aspen Institute, Wye, Maryland: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 5/26/99 from the World Wide Web: http//www.fundingfirst.; 1999.

17. Steinberg D. 2000. Does multiple sclerosis have a herpesvirus connection? HHV-6 seems to play a role, but the mechanism is far from clear. The Scientist.; 14: 16.

18. Stokstad E. 1999. From junk bond king to cancer crusader. Science.; 283: 1100-1103.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement