Mr. SMITH. Last year you had eight of these and now you are proposing to have 22 next year. I notice these total $500,000 each. Are they each one equal in amount or are they different amounts?

Dr. KENNEDY. No, they are not. Let me say we have made no awards as yet from this year's funds, sir. The first nationally competitive cycle began in July 1966. The preliminary screening of applications went through September and October. We invited 15 institutions to submit the full scale proposals in late November or early December. These latter proposals were received about the first of March 1967. Our staff has been very busy in an analysis of these and in making site visits at these 15 institutions. They will come before a preliminary review group in May and before the June meeting of the National Advisory Health Council. So none of these have been made. It is our guess that about half a million dollars is probably the right order of magnitude for this grant.

Mr. SMITH. So then you do not have the list of the eight available? Dr. KENNEDY. We do not.

Dr. SHANNON. We can give you the list of the ones that were selected.

Mr. SMITH. The 15?

Dr. SHANNON. Yes. Could I make one point before we close that? Dr. Kennedy did not point out that in general our project system is not suited to develop competence and excellence where excellence does not already exist.

Mr. SMITH. What is your legal authority for these new type grants? This is a general support program, isn't it? You are supposed to have uniform grants. How can you take part of the money and make some special grants? That is not uniformity any more, is it?

Dr. SHANNON. No, sir. The uniformity relates to the derivation of the funds. There is broad authority in the legislation to deal with institutions in support of research and research training. It is under that authority that these grants are made. It is under this authority that we propose to attempt to develop a more equitable distribution of scientific excellence within the Nation.

Mr. SMITH. Your authority in section 301 (d)?

Dr. KENNEDY. Section 301 (d) as amended by the Public Law 86-798. Mr. SMITH. Wasn't that legislation for the purpose of providing funds for continuing the formula basis grants, continuing grants? Dr. SHANNON. Sir, it is broader than that. That is the first element that we activated.

Mr. SMITH. Have you gotten any opinion from your general counsel that you can have special grants under this legislation?

Dr. SHANNON. I believe so; yes.

Mr. SMITH. Would you place that in the record? Dr. SHANNON. Be very glad to, if it is available. (The information follows:)

Review of the history indicates that NIH did not at the time of the initiation of the program consider it necessary to seek a formal legal opinion on the question raised. This judgment was based on informal discussions which NIH had with the Office of the General Counsel concerning the coverage of the Act, prior to the initiation of the program.

We have again reviewed the legislation and continue to believe that it provides the authority for this program. However, in response to the wishes of Congressman Smith, we will submit a request to the Office of the General Counsel for a formal opinion and provide the subcommittee with a copy when it becomes

available.

APPLICANTS FOR NEW HEALTH SCIENCE ADVANCEMENT AWARDS

Mr. LAIRD. Why not have him put the names of those 15 institutions into the record?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

(The information follows:)

CANDIDATE APPLICANTS FOR NEW HEALTH SCIENCE ADVANCEMENT AWARDS FROM INCREMENTAL FUNDS ($3.0 MILLION) IN F.Y. 1967 BUDGET

1. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

2. Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

3. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.

4. Rice University, Houston, Texas.

5. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.

6. University of California, San Diego, California.

7. Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

8. The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.

9. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

10. Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

11. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

12. State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York.
13. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
14. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
15. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Dr. SHANNON. The point I meant to make is that during the initial year we negotiated with a very limited number of institutions that were knowledgeable about the program from reading the congressional hearings and from correspondence with us. We selected four, initially, for pilot studies of how these grants could best be developed to satisfy the purposes for which they were designed. We actually negotiated in great detail with three for these establishments, ultimately, two awards were made in fiscal year 1966. On the basis of the knowledge we acquired during that initial exercise, we were willing to open it up for national competition.

Knowing that the needs were so great and so highly diversified, we requested that institutions not submit detailed formal applications because the funds were limited and we knew that very few could be granted. We requested, instead, quite detailed letters of intent with enough information so that the programs proposed could be visualized by the advisory group.

Mr. SMITH. Are all of these educational institutions?

Dr. KENNEDY. It was limited to educational institutions.

Mr. SMITH. So in effect what you really have in this program is some Federal aid to education without a formula.

Dr. KENNEDY. No, sir. Educational institutions primarily because they are the source of scientists and the awards are for science research or for science training. We felt that in order to develop strong institutions, it would be better to focus on those that had an educational capability, particularly in the field of graduate education, rather than simply to support, by fluid funds, research institutes. We feel that we have other means of doing that.

Mr. SMITH. Now you are proposing to have grants, special grants to 22 institutions within the 1968 fiscal year. Will the eight that are getting it this year be included in the 22?

Dr. KENNEDY. Yes. We are proposing that the incremental funds support 14 new institutions. On the other hand, it is our view that the

period of each of the grants should be for 5 years. So that the existing base of support, which is $4 million in this year's budget, will continue to support for the next 5 years those institutions which receive awards this year.

Mr. SMITH. I am not clear. Do you mean the eight, then, would automatically be included within the 22 or automatically excluded? Dr. KENNEDY. The 22 include these eight.

Mr. SMITH. But the eight would also receive a grant again?

Dr. KENNEDY. Correct.

Mr. SMITH. In the same amount?

Dr. KENNEDY. The amounts for the first 2 years are established by Council recommendation. The size of the grant for the next 3 years will be negotiated with them on the basis of the utilization of the funds to date.

LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR THE GRANTS

Mr. SMITH. Are you sure you have a legal opinion that this is permissible within this authorizing legislation?

Dr. SHANNON. Quite frankly, Mr. Smith, I am not certain. I know we have discussed this extensively with the General Counsel. I believe we have an official opinion and this we will put in the record.

Mr. SMITH. It should be interesting. I do not see how he can hold that those grants are authorized under 301 (d). It seems to me you are on a whole new program. What you are really doing is diverting some general funds from the general support area and from the 310 institutions and picking out some and giving them a bonus, which in effect reduces the others. I mean, there is only so much available. Dr. SHANNON. Yes. The primary program purpose of this is to permit the more rapid evolution of centers of excellence.

Mr. SMITH. I am not saying whether it is desirable or not desirable. If it is desirable it seems there ought to have been a considerable amount of backup material and planning for it. Of course, it would have to be within the legal authorization.

ANIMAL CARE SPECIALISTS

Would you explain this "Cadre of animal care specialists," what you contemplate, what the cost is, and how many people are involved? Dr. KENNEDY. There are essentially two programs. One is a program of training grants. These will be primarily, as most NIH research training grants are, directed at the early postdoctoral training of young veterinarians in formalized training programs in which there is competition among universities for the funds to set up the programs. Mr. SMITH. Are these to be employees?

Dr. KENNEDY. Oh, no; these will be training programs established under a principal investigator in universities throughout the country. This program will be responsible for taking young veterinarians, clinically competent in veterinary medicine, and giving them a new dimension of training so that they can work effectively in a research environment and be the people who will run the very large and elaborate animal facilities that exist in many biomedical research institutions.

Mr. SMITH. It may be better if we use a specific example. Now, Iowa State University has a veterinary school and they have a very extensive school on pets, and so forth. Now, what will this do with regard to them?

Dr. KENNEDY. Well, it would be our view that these training programs would take the graduates from that school who are competent in veterinary medicine.

Mr. SMITH. Some of whom have already specialized in pets?

Dr. KENNEDY. Well, our focus is on laboratory animals, those animals which are used commonly in biomedical research-rats, mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, pigs, miniature pigs, dogs, cats, subhuman primates, chimps, and so forth. These people would learn in these training programs what has to be known to enable them to assume responsibility for the very extensive animal research resources needed by institutions heavily engaged in medical research. For instance, in NIH's own direct operation, there is an enormous amount of space on campus for laboratory animals and, in addition, we have a very large farm out in Poolsville where animals are held.

I think that the pattern that is emerging around the country is is quite similar. Most medical schools, for instance, are developing very extensive central facilities for their laboratory animals and in addition, sometimes individually and sometimes through consortia of institutions, they are developing farms in rural areas. We want to train the people, by both fellowship and training grant programs, to take responsibility for this. They need to know a great deal about the special problems of the laboratory animals, the special diseases of the laboratory animal, the special nutritional requirements, and so forth, to run these well.

Mr. SMITH. Are you saying that the vets that have been available for these kind of jobs have not been competent to handle these jobs? Dr. SHANNON. Might I comment on that, sir? That is correct. Most veterinary schools have as the major outlet for their graduates the field of agricultural needs or the care of pets. Now, when you take one of those people into the biomedical sciences they encounter problems of diseases that are quite different, problems of containment and problems of the experiments themselves and the capability of different animal forms to be utilizable in those situations.

Mr. SMITH. How long a period of time will one of these fellowships be for? What is the cost?

Dr. KENNEDY. The period of training for young people, and these training programs are young graduates, may be from 1 to 3 years. I might say there is a parallel here with the young physicians, that is to say, physicians who are going into research also participate in the training programs supported by other Institutes of NIH. The stipends in these training grants are $5,000, $5,500, and $6,000 depending on the

Dr. KENNEDY. Per year. There is a dependency allowance and a maximum tenure on a training grant of 3 years. In addition, the institutions would get some funds.

Mr. SMITH. How many would there be?

Dr. KENNEDY. Well, we are planning through the training grant programs in the projected budget that 30 individuals will initially be included.

Mr. SMITH. Do you select the individual?

Dr. KENNEDY. The training grant mechanism is one under which the institution selects the individuals. We select the institution for the training on the basis of competitive application. On the other hand, once the training institution has been selected, the individual trainees for the program are selected by the institution. In the fellowship programs we make the selection.

Mr. SMITH. Would these recipients be under a contract or under some legal obligation to work in this kind of a center or with primates in research facilities after they arrive?

Dr. KENNEDY. No formal obligation.

Mr. SMITH. Then they might just become a pet specialist in New York City or somewhere.

Dr. KENNEDY. Well, it will not do them much good, this kind of training.

Mr. SMITH. All these things are pets any more, monkeys, dogs, cats, guinea pigs.

Dr. SHANNON. Mr. Smith, I doubt it. Our own experience has been that veterinary practice in the field of pets is certainly a highly lucrative enterprise.

Mr. SMITH. It is, yes.

Dr. SHANNON. All I can say is that it is highly unlikely that a graduate from a veterinary school would move into this area for training of 1, 2, or 3 years to acquire experience that will have no value in the care of pets. He must be motivated to this type of area before he comes in. On the other hand, I think it would be most unwise to impose an obligation that he must take a position in the science area as a condition of his entering training for two reasons: One, it may well turn out that he does not have the qualities, the qualifications, or the competence to be effective and, two, in general, I do not think indentured labor is very wise.

Mr. SMITH. A pet specialist may make $40,000 to $50,000 per year. What makes you think he is going to go into one of these institutions for $25,000?

Dr. SHANNON. A person who has that kind of salary available isn't going to accept a stipend at the $5,000 level. He isn't going to reenter the academic environment for a period of 1, 2, or 3 years if his motivation is primarily to be a pet specialist at a very high salary.

Mr. SMITH. After 3 years of this he will certainly be in a position to get more money as a pet specialist, will he not?

Dr. SHANNON. I do not believe so, sir, because the experience he will have as a result of that 3-year training will be knowledge of a wide variety of diseases and epidemic diseases of small animal colonies, he will be knowledgeable about the problems of animal containment, he will be knowledgeable about the problems of animal breeding for scientific purposes in relation to the scientific needs of laboratories which certainly are different than the pet field.

Mr. SMITH. There would have to be a heavy emphasis on his ability to deal with diseases of each one of these primate animals.

Dr. SHANNON. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. That is exactly what they sell their services for as pet specialists.