In order to achieve an average length of award of four years, it is necessary for us to limit virtually all of our competing renewals to four years, since practically none of them are recommended for three years. New investigators and, particularly, FIRST awardees, are given five year awards when the peer review groups recommend it, as are MERIT awardees. All other new grants are awarded for either three or four years. Mr. Early. In general, what do you see as the "down side" of out-of-order funding? Dr. Kirschstein. NIGMS agrees with the NIH position, as stated in the draft cost management plan that "in implementing its financial management plan, it is critical that the quality of research not be sacrificed in the interest of awarding low-cost grants." We also fully support the further statement that "Within this margin of excellence, where the perceived quality of the applications is statistically indistinguishable, Councils and Boards may make recommendations to fund grant applications 'out-of-order' of the percentile ranking." Thus, while we do not support extensive use of "out-of-order funding" as a cost management tool, we do support its use at the "margin of excellence," particularly for awards to excellent investigators with no other source of support. Mr. Early. In general, doctor, what do you see as the "down side" of using the BRDPI? Dr. Kirschstein. We feel that use of the BRDPI produces a reasonable measure of the costs of personnel and supplies. However, we have three concerns. First, as research becomes more technologically complex and resource intensive, the BRDPI may not appropriately predict the impact of such technological advances on research project costs. Second, as acknowledged in the NIH financial management plan, using the BRDPI provides for cost containment of the existing enterprise. Increases over the BRDPI would be required to address "unique problems or initiatives which will need to be considered outside of this funding framework." Finally, the careful adjustments in budget which are needed to limit the overall growth of our research portfolio to a rate no greater than the BRDPI will mean that the goals of each research project may take longer to achieve. Real scientific progress cannot help but be slowed. PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BUDGET Mr. Early. What was NIGMS Professional Judgment budget and how does it differ from the request before us? Dr. Kirschstein. For FY 1992, the NIGMS Professional Judgment budget was $976.4 million. This level would have provided a 40 percent success rate for competing research grants and would have funded 6,542 research trainees. LOSS OR DELAY OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Mr. Early. Will any significant new research initiatives or opportunities be lost or delayed by lack of funds in the FY 92 budget request? Dr. Kirschstein. The budgets recommended by peer review groups have increased yearly by almost 20 percent. The FY 1992 budget request, however, permits an average increase of only about 7 percent. The result will be that highly rated projects will either have subproject components deleted, or the pace of research slowed, or both. In addition, other promising research projects will not be funded. PRIORITY USES OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS Mr. Early. What priorities would the Institute pursue if addi-tional resources were available? If an increase over the FY 92 request is provided, how would you use these additional funds? Dr. Kirschstein. The Institute would use additional funds in three priority areas. We would support additional competing research project grants so that our success rate would move toward the historical levels of 35-40 percent. We would also increase funding for the NIGMS programs designed to increase the number of underrepresented minorities pursuing biomedical research. Thus, we would expand the recently announced initiatives in the Minority Access to Research Careers Program as well as undertake some additional efforts in the Minority Biomedical Research Support Program. A third area to which we would direct additional funds is research training. We would expand both the Medical Scientist Training Program and the Biotechnology Research Training Program, two programs which address special needs in the research community. SENIOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICE Mr. Early. How many senior biomedical research service slots have been allocated to the NIGMS and how many of those slots have been filled to date? Dr. Kirschstein. A policy decision was made at the PHS level that use of the Senior Biomedical Research Service (SBRS) recruitment and retention mechanism would be restricted primarily to the PHS intramural community, or for extramural scientists engaged in clinical research evaluation. By virtue of this definition, most extramural scientists are not eligible for inclusion. Although NIGMS has a small and unique intramural research program known as the Pharmacology Research Associate Training (PRAT) Program, the scientists recruited as PRAT fellows are young, junior staff members selected for a two-year period of postdoctoral work in pharmacological research. Their relatively junior status in career development does not qualify them for inclusion in the SBRS. Mr. Early. Briefly describe how implementation of the Senior Biomedical Research Service Program has facilitated NIH's recruitment and/or retention of intramural scientists? Dr. Kirschstein. As mentioned above, the NIGMS will not have access to the SBRS as a recruitment or retention program; thus, it will not benefit directly from its creation. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH National Institute of General Medical Sciences For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, [779,250,000] $833.180.000: 1 Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading, $48,104,000 shall not become available for obligation until September 19, 1992. (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991.) 1/ Language has been added to ensure that government-wide outlay limits for domestic discretionary programs established in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) are not exceeded. 181 |