National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: II. The Budget History
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"III. The Program Indicators." Institute of Medicine. 1985. Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9928.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

III. THE PROGRAM INDICATORS A. NIH Causes of declines in award rates and paylines Historically, the impact of budget decisions on the competing research grant programs of NIH and ADAMHA has been measured in terms of award rates and paylines. Table 2 shows the trends on award rates and paylines (see footnotes under the table for definitions of these terms) and on the numeric factors that contribute to them. An examination of this table discloses that (2) (1) although the average number of funded NIH projects per year increased from about 4,600 in the F.Y. 1975-79 period to more than 5,100 projects in the F.Y. 1980-84 period, the average award rate dropped from 49 to 38 percent and the average payline from 235 to below 200 (187 in F.Y. 1984) ; these decreases were due primarily to substantial increases in the numbers of applications submitted through these years--from slightly over 10,000 in F.Y. 1975 to nearly 17,000 a year in the F.Y. 1982-84 period--and also to some extent to increases in application approval rates and the elevation of average priority scores (discussed later in this paper); following the institution of the stabilization policy in F.Y. 1981, the award rates more or less leveled off through F.Y. 1984 at about 37 percent**, and the paylines at slightly below 190 (187 in F.Y. 1984~--mostly because the number of applications received per year leveled off at about the 17,000 figure during the F.Y. 1982-84 period; (3) major increases in applications to 18,000# and nearly 19,000 were expected for F.Y. 1985 and F.Y. 1986, respectively; if substantial increases in funding were not forthcoming, there would be further decreases in the award rates and the paylines. Although the increasing volume of applications has been the major factor affecting award rates and paylines, other factors also contributed. As shown in Table 3, the review groups are approving an ever increasing percentage of the applications and, on the average, assigning higher and higher priority scores. The proportion of applications approved rose from less than 75 percent in F.Y. 1975 to more than 87 percent in F.Y. 1984 and was expected to reach nearly 90 percent in F.Y. 1985 and 93 percent in F.Y. 1986. Moreover, the average priority scores have been steadily getting higher (lower in the numbers) since F.Y. 1980--i.e., from 258 to 232--and the percentage approved with priority scores in the top-score quartile (100-200) has steadily crept upwards--i.e., from 35.8 percent in F.Y. 1980 to 45.8 percent in F.Y. 1984. In other words, the percentage of applications approved is nearing 100 percent and the percentage of priority scores in the upper 25 percent score bracket is nearing 50 percent. *The varying figures for the individual institutes are shown in Part IV. **This was higher than the one-third level projected at the time of the stabilization initiative because NIH managed to fund 300 to 400 projects above the 5000 level. #A later estimate for F.Y. 1985, based on applications received by July 5, 1985, totaled 18,506. 14

0 ~ - - c) 'o" a, ~ - c 81 1 · - ql ·- `4 - en ~ h3 0 of ~ so c · - to c) - ~ o - :^ :- of . - h o . - C) . - _~ Cur A: ·0 _ C D ~ O '_ . - ~. `0 ~0 · - 0 _ ~ ~ O · - o A Cal 1 ~ C) O _ C`. a O O .,, 1— 0 0 O ~ ~ Us 1— ~ 1— 0` Cal ~ ~ · · · · · · — a' cad ~ us 1_ ~ cad ~ 0 ~ a:~ oo a~ o~ _ ~ ~ 0 1— 0 0` C~ C~ ~ _ _ C~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~_ ~0 1— - I. o~ . - 15 ~ ~o 0 0 ~ o' . - b ~ O a, E] ~ :' CL ~ 0 L, 0 ~ ~ · - ql C O ~ 0 . - :> C O O ~ :^ · - 1 ~1 C) _ ~ ~ ~ . - _ ~ ~ O — 60 ~ U ~ · - 0 ~ 0 _ 60 ~ ~ O .0 . - J: O E" . - O ~ . · 0 . cO O · - ~ _ 1 ;^ 1 0 ~ ~ C a. - O . - 0 0 ~ ~rl c, ~ C) .," _ · ~ e~ 0 ~4 40 ~ ~ O O ^~4 ~ : ~ ~ _ ~ - ~ O ~ C _ ~ 0 C~ ~ O O ~ . - ·04 · - _ C ~ `4 oO ~ . - ~ . - ~ . ~ h. ~ Pe _ $4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ - to ~ O t0 ~ S ~ c~ C~ _ ~ 0 "~ '0 _ co ~ ~ O ~ ~ .0 O ~ ~ 0 _ ~ ~ C) ~ _ .~4 0 00 ~ c. X . - ~ 0 ~ O 0 ~ ~ C '0 ~ 0~04 ~ t~ O . - '_ o C C O ~0 0 ~ 60 _ O —) _ O ~ - C co oo.. 1 C ~ ~ O _ _ · ~ O 0 ~ · _ `: _ O ~ ~ 00 ~ · .0 40 ~4 ~ — 0 It to ~ ~ ~ 00 C )- C 00= _ 0 0 ·— 0 54 00 ~ _ p~ _ CL t0 O ~ aC ~ ~ ~ ~ O _ ~ 0e - 4 C ~ ~ C a" O ~ O . - 60 3 ~ El 0 =~ - C ~ O ~ ~ 0 ~ CL ~ . - O 2 ~ Z 0 :^ 0 _ t0 o C ·-l _ O C~ ~0 :^ O L. tlO ~ C O · - ~ · - :~ ~ 0 ~ Z ~ 0 · - c' CJ ·- ~ 0 ~ ~ C C~ O O ~ C~-~4 :~ O ~ 60 U, ~ ~ · - _ `" e ~ D ~ 0 0 ~ o. ~ lV ~ ~ ~ 0 0 :> ~ ~ ~ 3 O ~ ~ 0 00 O ~ · - .C CL ~ :s ~ X CL ~ C) 0 0 a _ c' to a. - 0 ~ _ ~ C ~ ~ '0 O O ~ ~ '- ~ t0 0 t c, .,- ~ . - O ~ C CL CL ~ 00 ~ ^ C~ - oC ~ 60 ~ 0 C ~ _ · ~ ~ 60 c~ ~ 0 = .,. ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 _ 0 0 ~ ~ - ~ o o ~ :- .~ - ~ o ~ · ec ~ . - ~ ~^ ~ - ~ c) ~ ~ o . - c`. c~ ~ ~ . - - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ P "eC. - ~ :^ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S O _ o a, :^ ~ 1 ''. ~ ~ ~ 00 3 t0 0 C c, . - ~ ~ ~ - _ ~ > - O ~= : O—C., ~ E" · ~ C · :, O s~ ~O o :~` - ~0 Do 00 O C ~ ~ C ·~4 - O :^ 0 00 ~ C~ `0 0 ~0 U

TABLE 3 NIB Competing Research Projects* Applications -- Reviewed and Approved F.Y. 1975 - 1986 ~ of Total Recommended Number Number ~ in Upper of of of Quarter of Average Fiscal Applications Applications Applications Priority Scores Priority Year Reviewed Approved Approved (199 or better) Scores 1975 10,096 7,510 74.4 37.2 244 1976 ID, 119 7,231 71.5 35.3 252 1977 13,305 9,852 74.0 35.7 252 1978 14,500 11,429 77.6 36.5 254 1979 14,461 11,207 77.5 34.9 258 1980 14,142 11,220 78.7 35.8 258 1981 15,731 12,939 82.3 38.9 249 1982 16,989 14,396 84.7 42.6 242 1983 16,798 14,482 85.9 43.6 235 1984 16,901 14,755 87.3 45.8 232 1985 est. 17, 967# 16,142 89.8 1986 est. 18,774 17,387 92.6 SOURCE: NIB *These include not only the traditional R01 projects (the overwhelming majority) but also some related categories--R22, R23, R43, R44, Pot, U01 and NIGHS P41 projects. $The burden placed on the study sections by the expanding volume of applications was a subject of discussion at the fiftieth meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director on November 19, 1984, pp. 1 and 5. 16

NIH officials attribute these trends in study section actions primarily to the generally improving quality of the applications, although this judgment is necessarily based on anecdotal evidence and impressions. A contributing factor to the rising approval rates has been the increasing number of amended applications being submitted each year; they increased from 16 percent of the applications in 1980 to 23 percent in F.Y. 1984 and tend to come from applicants who were close to the paylines with their first efforts and try to improve their applications enough to push them over the line, sometimes by improving their methodologies on the basis of the study section's "pink-sheet" critique of the first application. As one NIH official put it, "only the hardy souls stay in the game"; the marginal scientists--e."., those with priority scores in the 300s and 400s on their first tries--tend to drop out of the system . The NIH director, James Wyngaarden, has said that, as a consequence of the "improved quality of the applicants", a greater pressure has been placed on the peer review system to "discern subtle differences among individual applications making up the large body of projects"36/. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that changes in the behavior patterns of the study sections also have something to do with what some have dubbed "study section creep", although there is no way of quantifying the extent of it. Study section members are not supposed to think in terms of funding but it is generally conceded that they do. The incentives to do so are all there. In the recommending process, study section members know full well that projects assigned priorities in the 400-499 and 300-399 brackets have no chance of obtaining funding and, therefore, are less inclined to take the "chilling" action of disapproving a project when the priority score will settle the matter. On the other hand, they know that, if a project is to have a chance of funding, it must be given a priority score in the top quartile--100 - 200. Under the circumstances, it is somewhat misleading to compare today's award rates and paylines with those of yesteryear or to criticize budget or appropriation actions on the basis of the number of "approved but unfunded" projects. Dr. Wyngaarden has stated that "while the quality of science has certainly improved, there has been a change in study section behavior so that award rates were relatively inflated one or two decades ago in comparison with the current rates"37/. NIH has attempted to sensitize the study sections to the problems of escalating percentages of approval rates and priority scores but apparently without much success. For a period up to 1980, NIH followed a policy of permitting the institutes to "normalize" the priority scores for purposes of funding--i.e., converting them to scores based on something resembling a bell-shaped curve--and about half of the institutes did so. It is reported that the House Appropriations Committee complained that keeping two sets of books on priority scores was confusing, and, as a consequence, the normalization effort was discontinued in 1980. However, four of the institutes are, for purposes of funding, currently arraying the priority scores of each of the study sections in percentile ranks and selecting a uniform funding cut-off point on a percentile basis (e.g., in terms of the top 20 percent for each study section) instead of adhering strictly to priority scores across the board and thus rewarding the study sections with the higher sets of priority scores. Other institutes may very well adopt this practice. NIH has a study underway on the problems associated with the escalation of *NIB officials also point out that, in contrast to the approval rates now going over 90 percent for the applications as a whole, the percentage of applications approved for the relatively new small-business set-aside program is in the neighborhood of only 50 percent, approximately the percentage that obtained for all NIH research projects in the 1950s. 17

priority scores and ways and means for addressing them but is currently uncertain about the possibilities for dealing with the escalation of approval rates. The success-rate alternative Dr. Wyngearden has suggested that greater emphasis might be placed on the "success rate" than upon the award rate or payline and added that, when funding is expressed in terms of success rates, as the funded fraction of all applications received, "it becomes evident that the downward shift is not as large as might be inferred from changes in paylines or award rates"38/. This is illustrated in Table 4, which indicates that, while the average award rate from the last half of the 1970s (excluding the very high year of 1975) to the first half of the 1980s dropped 17 percent, the success rate dropped only 9 percent. The success rate measure has the merit of eliminating distortions caused by changes in study section behavior but, of course, totally discounts the improved quality factor, whatever the extent of that may be. If the success rate were to be used as the index for achieving stabilization, a rising volume of applications would drive up the funding levels that would be required to achieve the stabilization objective, although to a lesser degree than the award rate. For example, the use of the F.Y. 1984 success rate of 32.4 percent (slightly above the average for the 1980s) would, based on the current projections on the volume of applications, involve an increase in funding to provide for more than 5,800 projects in F.Y. 1985 and approximately 6,100 in F.Y. 1986. These are, however, under the compromise figure of 6,200 recently approved by Congress'. Implications for future policy A major uncertainty to be considered in connection with the future of a stabilization policy for NIH is whether the volume of applications will continue to rise over the next few years. The current pool of biomedical Ph.D. faculty members (the predominant source of applications for NIH research grants), after heaving expanded significantly in the 1970s, essentially leveled off in the 1980s . Moreover, as pointed out in Part IV of this paper, the number of applications NIH received from new principal investigators decreased significantly from the peak year of 1979 to 1982 (the latest year for which figures are available). Table 5 shows that the total number of applications involving entirely new proposals--both from previous applicants and first-time applicants--did level off through the 1982-84 period. However, the F.Y. 1985 estimate (in Table 5), based on virtually a complete count of applications in hand, reflects approximately an 8 percent increase over the 1982-84 level in appl ications for entirely new pro j ects . It has been speculated that this might be attributable, at least in part, to the better prospects for success afforded by the substantial increases in the F.Y. 1985 appropriations for NIH research projects#. NIH officials believe that *Use of the F.Y. 1984 award rate would yield approximately 6,000 projects for F.Y. 1985 and 6,500 for F.Y. 1986. **According to the 1985 report of the IOM/NAS Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel, the number of biomedical science Ph.D.s employed in academia rose from 30,38) in 1977 to 33,566 in 1979 and to 36,842 in 1981 but only to 36,983 in 198339 . #NIB analyses of past increases in applications do not show a close correlation between those increases and increases in funding. 18

TABLE 4 NIH Competing Research Projects Trends In Paylines, Award Rates, and Success Rates F.Y. 1975 - 1986 Fiscal Year Payline Award Rate (a) Success Rate (b) 1975 NA 60.5 % 4S.0 % 1976 241 47.7 34.1 1977 229 38.6 28.6 1978 230 45.3 3S. 7 19 79 239 51. 6 4 0 . 0 1980 218 42.3 33.9 1981 201 39.2 32. 3 1982 188 34 . 7 29.4 1983 184 37.2 32.1 1984 187 37.3 32.4 1985 est. 170 (c) 31.0 (c) 28.2 (c) 1986 est. 170 (c) 28.8 (c) 26.1 (c) Source: NIB (Success rates computed by author. (a) Funded percentage of approved applications. (b) Funded percentage of all applications. (c) Estimates in the President' s F.Y. 1986 Budget. (Based on the approved compromise at 6,200 funded projects for F.Y. 1985, the projections for this year are as follows--a payline of around 185, an award rate of around 3796 and a success rate of about 341. 19

TABLE 5 Number of NIH Competing Research Applications(a) By Type F . Y. 1975 - 1985 New Applications Other Competing Applications Total Entirely New Proposals(b) Amendments(C) Sub-Total Continuations Sup~lementals 1975 6,194 916 7,110 2,708 275 10,093 1976 6,402 930 7,332 2,423 295 10,050 1977 8,308 1,083 9,391 3,609 304 13,304 1978 8,923 1,467 10,390 3,830 282 14,502 1979 9,435 1,429 10,864 3,328 266 14,458 1980 8,962 1,569 10,531 3,306 305 14,142 1981 9,561 1,678 11,239 4,209 283 15,731 1982 9,848 2,072 11,920 4,818 251 16,989 1983 9,847 2,295 12,142 4,470 186 16,798 1984 9,824 2,444 12,268 4,440 189 16,897 1985 est.( ) 10,633 2,943 13,576 4,733 197 18,506 Source: NIH (a) Includes not only RO1 applications (the overwhelming majority) but also R22, R23, R43, R44, POT, UO1, and NIGMS P41 applications. Includes not only new applicants but also applicants who have submitted previous but different proposals. (For information on first-time applicants, available through 1982-83, see Part IV B on support of new investigators.) "Amendments" relate to applications submitted in a previous year. (A change submitted in the same year as the original application displaces the original application.) Estimate as of July 5, 1985. (The estimated total of 18,506 is higher than the earlier estimate of 17,967 contained in previous tables.) 20

the current increase is part of a continuing trend for the future. They point to the fairly significant numbers of Ph.D.s and the growing number of M.D.s who will remain in the applicant pool for many years and to the expanding research opportunities created by the rapid development of science and technology in this country. There is a definite upward trend in the numbers of amended applications, which account for over 20 percent of all new project applications; they have risen each year since F.Y. 1979. In addition, applications for grants under the small-business set-aside program have been increasing. Nevertheless, there are enough paradoxes in the available data to raise a question about NIH's present ability to make reasonably accurate predictions on future trends in the volume of applications . If the volume of applications were to continue its present upward trend, the use in budgets for stabilization purposes beyond F.Y. 1986 of a flat figure, such as the 6,200 projects approved for F.Y. 1985, would have adverse effects on future award rates and paylines. Indexing the number of funded competing projects to the volume of applications in budget proposals--perhaps on the basis of success rates-~ould be a logical alternative for achieving stabilization. However, the feasibility of this alternative is questionable. The OMB would undoubtedly resist any effort to build automatic program increases (or any kind of an "entitlement" concept) into future budgets, and Congress might object to it as well. In addition, the question about the predictability of future trends in applications would be an important consideration. At this point (August 1985), NIH is uncertain about its future course concerning a stabilization policy. With the enactment of appropriations to support an all-time high level of 6,200 competing projects for F.Y. 1985 and probably for F.Y. 1986, the issue of stabilization may now seem less urgent. However, the foregoing analysis does raise policy questions which appear to warrant further examination in the near future (See Part V for a listing of possible sub jects for further exploration). B. ADA~IA The award rate for ADAMHA's competing projects declined from 57 percent in F.Y. 1979 to a low point of 35 percent in F.Y. 1981 and has risen since to 42 percent in F.Y. 1984, but paylines steadily declined throughout this period from 250 to 172 (Table 6~. Me President's budgets for F.Y. 1985 and 1986 would have lowered these to 35 percent and 168, and the congressional increase for F.Y. 1985 would have essentially continued the F.Y. 1984 levels of 42 percent and 172. Unlike NIH, the volume of ADAMHA applications has not risen appreciably since F.Y. 1979, although the agency has been projecting an increase for F.Y. 1985 and F.Y. 1986. The percentages of applications approved by the review groups are far below those of NIH but are gradually rising--from 48 percent in F.Y. 1979 to about 63 percent in F.Y. 1984. Despite steady increases in the number of projects funded and relatively stable award rates through the 1980s, the ADAMHA paylines steadily decreased, which means that, as for the NIH programs, more and more of the approved ADAMHA applications were being scored in the high priority bracket. In all probability, the position on a stabilization strategy for ADAMHA will in the future, as in the past, be tied to that for NIH. *A paper, forecasting increases over the years in new research project grant applications (a simulation based on trends in manpower data), by a staff member of NIH's Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, is currently in preparation. 21

a] c ^ ~ o ~ ~ · - - ~e v o - ~ c 04 3 O4 114 e 0 0 - a~ D o ·,4 ~ C L. a. C ~ O A: ~ C S O ~ ~ 8 - = ~ C U] ~ ~ _ o _ In ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a, ~ ~ z s cc al ~ n ~ ~ 0 (D ~ 1— ~0 ~0 ~ · - r~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ o _ ~ I: ~ · - ~: ~ :~ P. ~ ~ C ~ ~4 o Z C o 0 aC ~ ~ Ll a ~o C ~ ~ ' ~ C ^ o aC ~: - o o _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~n a~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ t~ tI~ c~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s . _ o ~ ~ C s ~ _ o C O D4 ~ Q. a~ ~ · - ·~4 o~ ~ 3 t ~C S O C ~ L. 3: 0 ~ 3 O C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ·- O ~ _ ,~ ~ ~ O ~ m. - _ ~ ~v a ., - · - ~ _ ~ ~ CQ tU _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ a' ~ ~o ~ ~ U~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ c ~n ,,~, ~ ~ ~ O _ 0 u~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 a~ c ·— ~ U~ I~~ Ll _ C O O ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0-- . _ D' ~ r. ~ ~ C} ~ ~ a, U 1 ~ -: v _ ~ U · - ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ E 3 0 & _ c~, -: ~ ~ C ~ ~ ·- ~ ~ & >4 E~ O V · O & ~ O ~ O ~ O O ~ tD ~ a, ~ a' ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 · ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ oO ~ ~ u' ~ s ~n O · - ~o _ ~ ~ :>. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o: ~ _ "C: O ~ ~ ~ V ~ s ~ V, C ~ ~ V ~ "C C _ ~ ~ O ~ O eq ~ C ~ C C -: · - ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n L.) O ~ O ~ ~— ~0 t— o 0 0 ~— _ ~ c~ c~ ~ .. ~ ~ 1 dV V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~r ~1: — · - ~ ~ t— ~ a' co a) ~ a, a, ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ · - ~ ~ ~ ~ :5: _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ — O O ~ ~ ~ ,~ U V ~ U ~ — cn ~, ~o ~ s o. C ~ O _ C O ~ es C · - ~ . s ~ ~ · - 3 t— un o~ ~— a~ ~ ~ t— ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ _ O ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~n r~ a, ~ 0 0 0 · - ~ ~ u, ~ . - ~r ~ ~ a' ~ o, _ _ :> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c r == . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 0w C ~ ~ ' ~ C · O ~ O U _ C) ~ C D. ~ ~ ~ C C O CL.C ~ oo O ~ ~ ~ U — . - ~ · - a~ Ig ~~S ~ U: _ ~n 0 ·~- U] ~ O · - · - ~ E — C ~ ~ ~ C o: O ~ O ~ ~ ' O ~ ~_ ~ ~ C C1. ~C ~ C) _. ~ _ - E ~ ~ ~ c) ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ C _ c 0 _ a. O · - ~ :' — O · - ~ ~ ~ :~: eg ~ _ ~ eq ~n C ~ ~ ~ _ aC C: ~ ,C ~ u, · E~ ~ ~ E~ u, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o - a, a, , o' ~ ~ ~ o, ~ - - - - - - a~ a~ o, o, ~ - 22

Next: IV. Other Program Aspects of Concern »
Stabilizing the Funding of NIH and ADAMHA Research Program Grants: A Background Paper Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!