Page images
PDF
EPUB

fields. This may, of course, build in some bias but not nearly so much as the biases built into the system when administration is essentially in the hands of nonresearch people. In my opinion, there should be a very sharp separation in concept between the responsibilities of the administrative staff and the responsibilities of the study committees. The present scheme of having the decisions made by study awards committees who use consultants, while the administrative staff is a facilitating agency, seems to me to be inherently sound. Among scientists for some years there has circulated a quip attributed to Don Marquis, the humorist of the early twenties, who spoke of his wife as having a "whim of iron,” that is to the effect that the executives and administrators distributing large sums of money have "whims of iron.”. The problem of the protection of the investigator in his quest for information is an important one, and in our present society is best handled by major universities with their long tradition of intellectual freedom.—John E. Anderson.

By and large I would answer this question in the affirmative. I have little knowledge of the exact composition of some of the awarding committees.Warren Andrew.

I am, indeed, very much satisfied with the nature and construction of the research grant and study awards committees. They have not always given me everything I have requested. I must say in reflection that their judgment has always been good; indeed, it has been in the best interest of general research.Henry H. Banks.

I am completely satisfied.—Howard B. Bensusan.

I think the nature and composition of the grant and study awards committees is excellent.-Geoffrey H. Bourne.

I am well satisfied with the nature and composition of research grant and study awards committees. By and large, these committees are made up of individuals of high integrity and they have done a very serious and commendable job in the awarding of grants.-Clark E. Brown.

Although this question does not specifically name the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, I assume that these are the two granting sources of major concern. I think I should state, however, that in my opinion the large private foundations, as well as the Government agencies responsible for research grants, have to a great degree succeeded in maintaining an impartial and scientific approach to this problem, combined with a knowledge of their responsibility to the citizens of the United States.

Unfortunately, there is a short supply of scientists of all types in the United States. For this reason, scientific committees in general, as well as granting bodies, have had to depend upon a relatively small number of qualified scientists. As we recruit qualified people into science, this situation will certainly change. It would be extremely dangerous, however, to lower the qualifications for memberships on such responsible committees. I believe the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health should be congratulated upon their continuing efforts to improve the nature and composition of research grant committees and the method of awarding such grants.-Ewald W. Busse.

I believe a careful examination of the membership and method of selection of research grant and study award committees should be undertaken by an independent nonpartisan group. I have the impression that there is a tendency to select persons who do not have the background or experience to give adequate weight to the socioeconomic aspects of aging in considering research projects. In part, this is due to the specialization in each separate institute. This is one reason why I tend to favor a new separate National Institute of Gerontology. (See answer to question 10.)— Wilbur J. Cohen.

I am not equipped to comment in detail on the study awards committees. Certainly this mechanism is preferable to a staff of Federal employees adjudicating award matters.—Eugene A. Confrey.

As you are aware, my knowledge of the field of gerontology is limited. I don't know enough about the way the grants are handled to support or criticize the way they have been previously administered.–Fred Cottrell.

In consequence of this, many workers in this great field are in a sense, secondclass faculty members. They are second class since they have no voice in the management of the university as regular members of the staff have. This handicap is much greater than might appear to be the case at first sight.-E. V. Cowdry.

Study committees do a good job.-Sears Crowell.

It is my belief that these committees have done outstanding work within the framework of a specific grant program, and I would recommend that they continue in much the same form as now. What is needed is not a change in the committees but a new source of funds for the social scientists which would naturally be administered by committees made up of persons with special competence in the social science fields.— Wilma Donahue.

Yes.-H. H. Draper.

I shall not attempt to answer all your numbered questions, 1, 7, and 10 have been covered. As to 5, I find myself more and more dissatisfied with the committees passing on research grants. I have sat on many in many Government agencies and have come to feel that the civilian scientists on the panels or committees are not only less wise than the Government men responsible for these programs, but also to a surprising degree more conservative. I am certain that abolition of the civilian scientific advisory groups would, in the long run, lead to very undesirable bureaucracy, but some means should be found at present for redressing the overbalance in favor of these committees as against the institutional executive officer. The administrative setup in ONR and NSF (in contradistinction to NIH) where the committee is advisory and the administrative official has the line authority, seems better than the alternate arrangement with the committee having final say. I also have the distinct impression that most committees in the life science area are relatively unsympathetic to or downright intolerant of proposals that lack the conceptual and experimental simplicity of, say, those in biochemistry. Granting that much research in the psychosociological area is a bit fuzzy at the present, so was most biological research a few decades ago and this did not constitute a good reason for not supporting the biology of that time or the social science of this time.

This is a sufficient informal running commentary on your questions to be of some service-I hope. Since the points have not been carefully phrased, I should appreciate an opportunity to check any statements that are explicitly attributed to me in a written report; I have no objection to attribution as such.— R. W. Gerard.

I have not had sufficient personal experience with these committees to evaluate them.—Sidney Goldstein.

In connection with question No. 5, I have served as a scientific consultant to the Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness on two different study sections during the past 8 years. I have come to have the highest respect for the integrity and dedication of the individuals associated with this Institute. I can conceive of no system that is fairer, safer, and more democratic than the study section approach to research grants, etc. Time after time I have observed personal bias set aside in the face of information developed in the detailed discussions and examinations of these study sections. I would have no reservation about an institute of gerontology using this vehicle in the processing of research grants.

The many technical problems involved in sound research design in the area of gerontology further supports the idea of a formal institute dedicated on a full-time basis to exploration in this important area. I regret to say that in 1960 I know of no human research project which can be said to have isolated an effect of aging per se, in the face of sufficient, critical controls as to make scientific interpretation compelling. This is not to undervalue several distinguished contributions in the area of gerontology, but rather to underline or accent the scientific difficulties which surround and almost preclude penetration in this area. The problem of securing matched, carefully tagged subjects in adequate numbers is of course often a limiting consideration. But there are many others. I am not one who believes in “magic of institutes." But I do believe that the model represented in our National Institutues of Health represent a wise investment in the future growth and development of this country.—Ward C. Halstead.

Study sections and other advisory committees do not currently have adequate representation from those concerned with public health, preventive medicine, and the social sciences.-Albert V. Hardy.

I am not satisfied with the nature and composition of research grant and study awards committees, although I have vast faith in the NIH study sections in which scientists pass on the merit of specific requests. A special difficulty in many aging research problems arises from the fact that the study section members on the various studý sections of the National Institutes of Health frequently have had experience only in short-term research programs and think in shortterm research programs. Because of this, they conceive of research in the field of gerontology as referring only to research on decrepit and senile animals, and I am convinced that a great many of the important psychological, biological, and medical research problems can only be attacked effectively in terms of relatively long-term research in which one traces changes in the subjects over long periods of time. I will discuss this problem in more detail in reply to question 10.–Harry F. Harlow.

Question Nos. 5 and 10. The research grant and study award committees represent an excellent approach to the problem of equitably dispensing available funds. In general the National Institutes of Health have functioned well and a large amount of experience in the operation of these Institutes has been accumulated over the years. It would seem vise to take advantage of these existing organizational channels and to create a National Institute of Gerontology under the present Institutes of Health. Such an Institute would serve a useful purpose in the integration of research on aging. The main function of the proposed Institute might well be to dispense funds for research and the research activities of the Institute itself, if any, should be limited to avoid competition with private centers. Through this organization the research activities of various institutions might be coordinated for a few large-scale projects requiring the cooperation of several research centers (e.g., certain population research projects which have to draw on huge samples in order to yield meaningful results).

An attempt should also be made to overcome some of the objections to the present system such as the criticism that young, unknown investigators find it more difficult to obtain support than do their established colleagues. Yet, it is only

[ocr errors]

natural that committee members prefer to entrust large sums of money to scientists who have already demonstrated their ability for productive research rather than to the untried novice. The possible loss of capable young investigators is a grave danger and attempts are being made to remedy this situation (e.g., small grants program). An equally serious danger is the potential stifling of "unconventional” research. Projects that are directly opposed to the beliefs and theories of committee members either in design, execution, or expected outcome may not receive the required support. Yet, we all know that great strides are often made by the creative investigator who discards the “tried and true ways” in favor of an imaginative unorthodox approach. By and large, the present system of grant awards has worked well due to the high caliber of the participating scientists and its failings reflect primarily the imperfections of human nature.- Lissy F. Jarvik.

Perhaps it would be advantageous for the study committee membership to be made up of those who are engaged in research. It would also be desirable to have some degree of rotation of membership on the committee.- Edgar P. Jayne.

Yes.-Robert B. Johnston.

Yes, within my limited experience.—Max Kaplan.

It is my impression that the research grant committees in the social science areas are staffed by highly competent individuals. The large majority of these individuals, however, have had no direct connection with aging research. Of course, I am in no position to say whether a biasing effect against aging proposals is thereby exerted. If there is any biasing effect, I am sure it is of a very subtle nature, occasioned in part by the fact that aging proposals must compete against research proposals in other social science areas.-Nathan Kogan.

I am satisfied with the nature and composition of research grant and study awards committees. I believe the Government should promote long-range investments in research particularly since certain fields are of a nature which may require years before appreciable results are achieved. The need for annual renewals of research grants and new projects sometimes tends to channel the research efforts into short-term types of projects which may yield tangible results (scientific papers) more rapidly. In some cases this may sacrifice research of a more profound type which may take many years to complete.—Ross C. Kory.

Yes.-John W. Magladery.

Nature and composition of research grant and study awards committees. As a member now, and in the past, of such committees of the National Institutes of Health, perhaps I may be considered a biased observer, but as a research worker I can make this statement: If on some occasion one of my grant applications is disapproved by NIH, I will feel quite sure that it has been given every consideration that could reasonably be expected-and more.

I have been reviewing applications for various granting agencies in Canada and the United States for the past 22 years, and against that background I feel justified in expressing very high approval of the NIH system of study sections, councils, and ad hoc panels—the choice of appropriate consultants, the thoroughness and patience with which applications are reviewed, the sympathy toward investigators' difficulties, along with the maintenance of scientific standards, and a sense of responsibility for the taxpayers' money. The credit for the success of this scheme should go largely to the executive secretaries of the various sections and councils and to other staff officers, whose scientific knowledge and special skills are combined with a real interest in the work of the Institutes and a cooperative and cordial attitude to applicants, grantees, and consultants.-Donald Mainland. There is, it seems to me, need for funds to support experimental educational programs in which the knowledge that we now have could be developed and applied. These experimental programs need, of course, to be evaluated by process analysis as they are underway as well as by before and after testing. - Paul B. Maves.

Insofar as my experience is concerned, the nature and composition of research grants and study awards committees are very good. My only suggestion would to establish a definite procedure of rotation of committee members.--Ross A. McFarland.

I have been extremely favorably impressed with the granting committees I have seen, as to the quality of their personnel, the caliber of the consultants whom they call in, the kinds of questions they ask, and the serious devotion to their task which they have shown. The overall view which they get of the work and personalities in their research areas must be very stimulating to them, and of real benefit to the country.-Robert T. Monroe.

I have had only casual contact with the research grants and study awards committees. They have seemed to be scrupulous and judicious. It is inperative that, in choosing new members for study groups, the various agencies obtain active investigators, and not those who make good committee members. There is a tendency to reappoint the same type of people. Why not look for young rebels? William Montagna.

Yes.- Matthew T. Moore.

I have no basis for dissatisfaction.—Robert W. Mowry.

Yes.-Elizabeth Moyer.

Existing grant support mechanisms in biology and medicine appear to be adequate for financing future research on aging; nor does there seem to be any need for changing the present composition and nature of research grant and study awards committees.--Harold F. Osborne.

Under a project grant system such coordinated research centers are difficult if not impossible to maintain. The crossover from animal experimental to human studies is at best not easy because of the need to devise special approaches when dealing with man. Often developmental work is required which cannot strictly fall into conditioned project research. Accordingly, block grants (or institutional grants) awarded to such study centers would seem to be the most profitable method for promoting the work of study centers for aging problems. --Gregory Pincus.

No opinion.-Otto Pollak.

From my experience and that of many of my colleagues I am satisfied with the nature and composition of research grant committees. I have always appreciated the time and conscientious effort put in by many of our busiest and most productive scientists.--Dorothy Price.

In general, the nature and composition of research grant and study award committees has been satisfactory. There are instances where a research grant application is reviewed by a site visiting group consisting of study committee

« PreviousContinue »