Biomedical scientists' concern about the future of funding of health science research prompted this volume's exploration of the financing of the entire health research enterprise and the complex reasons underlying these increasing concerns. The committee presents clear-cut recommendations for improving allocation policies to ensure a balanced distribution of resources that will allow the biomedical research community to build on exciting recent discoveries in many areas. Funding Health Sciences Research also provides the first-ever comprehensive reports on the 1980s policies that have affected the research landscape, including stabilization, downward negotiation, and extended grant duration.

This book brings to light trends in the support of life scientists beginning their professional careers. In 1985, 3,040 scientists under the age of 36 applied for individual investigator (R01) grants from the National Institutes of Health, and 1,002 received awards, for a "success rate" of 33%. In 1993, 1,389 scientists under the age of 36 applied for R01 grants and 302 received awards, for a success rate of 21.7%. Even when R23/R29 grant awards (both intended for new investigators) are added to the R01 awards, the number of R01 plus R23 awards made in 1985 was 1,308, and in 1993, the number of R01 plus R29 was 527. These recent trends in the funding of young biomedical research scientists, and the fact that young nonbiomedical scientists historically have had a smaller base of support to draw upon when beginning their careers, raises serious questions about the future of life science research. It is the purpose of this volume to present data about the trends and examine their implications.

The world is on the threshold of a great new industrial revolution, a 1 scientific-industrial revolution. Recombinant DNA technology and hybridoma technology ("monoclonal antibodies") have already pro vided unique investment opportunities for venture capitalists. Hence published reports of biomedical research are no longer restricted to scientific journals, but now appear regularly not only in weekly news 2 magazines like Time and U. S. News & World Report,3 but also in the financial sections of The New York Times,4 The Wall Street Journal,S 6 8 Business Week, Fortune,7 and The Economist, as well as in such stock 9 market advisory publications as New Issues and Inc. (The Magazine for Growing Companies). 10 These publications now appear to be as impor tant to biomedical scientists in keeping abreast of new scientific devel opments in biotechnology as is Current Contents. (The costs of health cost provision and of fundamental biomedical research are now also being followed by such media. ) Conversely, Wall Street financial bro kers increasingly no longer confine their reading to economic journals but are also perusing Nature,ll Science,12 and Science N 13 for infor ews mation on both fiscal and scientific advances in these areas. It is obvious that the information explosion in biotechnology is crossing traditional boundaries (e. g. , ref. 14). This volume is the second of several that are intended to inform both the biomedical community and interested intelligent laymen of the political and economic implications of biomedical research.

Since 1992 the Department of Defense (DOD), through the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, has received congressionally earmarked appropriations for programs of biomedical research on prostate, breast, and ovarian cancer; neurofibromatosis; tuberous sclerosis; and other health problems. Appropriations for these Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs are used to support peer reviewed extramural research project, training, and infrastructure grants. Congress has become concerned about funding increases for these programs given current demands on the military budget. At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined possibilities of augmenting program funding from alternative sources. The resulting IOM book, Strategies to Leverage Research Funding: Guiding DOD's Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs, focuses on nonfederal and private sector contributions that could extend the appropriated funds without biasing the peer review project selection process.

During an interval of 15 years, the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust spent over $500 million on four programs in the basic biomedical sciences that support the education and research of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, junior faculty, and senior researchers. The Markey Trust asked the NRC to evaluate these programs with two questions in mind: "Were these funds well spent?" and "What can others in the biomedical and philanthropic communities learn from the programs of the Markey Trust, both as an approach to funding biomedical research and as a model of philanthropy?" One of five resulting reports, this volume examines the Research Program Grants, which awarded $323 million to support investigators with a major commitment to the life sciences and to assist in the establishment, reorganization, or expansion of significant biomedical research centers or programs. Using information from Markey archives, materials from grant recipients, and site visits to a sample of institutional grant recipients, the authoring committee describes the impact that Markey grants made on the centers and programs funded by these grants, along with the unique aspects of the Markey approach to funding that may be applicable to other funders of biomedical research programs.

This essential guide offers over 2,800 funding programs from all levels of government, corporations, and foundations for anyone seeking funding for research, faculty development, dissertations, internships, scholarships and assistantships, facility and organizational support, conferences, and more. Coverage has been increased in such areas as clinical and programmatic studies in gerontology and mental health; clinical studies of the cause, detection, and elimination of cancer; health care delivery and maintenance; and programs researching all areas relating to coronaviruses. While most programs listed originate from the US or Canada, programs from other countries are included. Three user-friendly indexes (Subject, Program Type, and Geographic Focus) help grantseekers quickly find the ideal funding opportunity. Each entry includes: Sponsor name and address Sponsor's area of interest Grant title Contact information Description and Requirements Sample awards (where applicable) Web address (if available) Directory of Biomedical and Health Care Grants is also available online at www.GrantSelect.com Also available in print from the GRANTS Database Series: Funding Sources for Community and Economic Development Funding Sources for K-12 Education Funding Sources for Children and Youth Programs Operating Grants for Nonprofit Organizations Directory of Grants in the Humanities Directory of Research Grants

This Review sets out to propose a structure for the funding arrangements for the whole spectrum of health research, with the objective of obtaining the maximum benefit from research success and, where possible, eliminating duplication of effort. The Review found, however, that the UK is at risk of failing to reap the full economic, health and social benefits that the UK's public investment in health research should generate. There is no overarching UK health research strategy to ensure UK health priorities are considered through all types of research and there are two key gaps in the translation of health research: (i) translating ideas from basic and clinical research into the development of new products and approaches to treatment of disease and illness; (ii) implementing those new products and approaches into clinical practice.The Review also found that the wider funding arrangements for supporting translation of ideas from conception to practice could be more coherent or comprehensive and, where arrangements exist, they do not function well. The Review identified cultural, institutional and financial barriers to translating research into practice in the publicly funded research arena. But it also found that, in the private sector, the pharmaceuticals industry is facing increasing challenges in translating research into health and economic benefit. The Review has sought to make recommendations that will increase the translation of R&D into health and economic benefit for the UK, both in the public and private sectors. The Review recommends that the Government should seek to achieve better coordination of health research and more coherent funding arrangements to support translation by establishing an Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR).