Substances and Disease Registry and the EPA in a review of all available scientific literature on mercury. We intend to convene a group of experts to review all this information on mercury and to seek their guidance on determining threshold levels. An interim report will be prepared outlining the findings and recommendations of the experts sometime next year. NIEHS basic research into the health effects of air pollutants will provide the broad base of knowledge needed by EPA and state air pollution control program managers to efficiently and effectively achieve the ambitious goals of the Clean Air Act established by Congress last year. It is our intention to solicit applications for grants for such research both from those institutions with long and distinguished histories of advancing the understanding of the effects of air pollution on human health and from scientists and research physicians with new and innovative ideas for studies. Mr. Early: What are your program plans in this area for FY 1991 and FY 1992? Dr. Hoel: In FY 1991, we will take a final look at the review we conducted last year to determine research needs and information gaps in current understanding of the health effects of air pollutants. We will summarize that review and make it available to the university-based biomedical research community and our Institute Advisory Council. We will continue to work with EPA to assure that our research plans are well coordinated. 1992, NIEHS will be prepared to award grants for the most important and scientifically sound research studies needed to fill critical information gaps. In FY Mr. Early: Does your FY 1992 budget request include new funds for this purpose? Dr. Hoel: No, it does not. Last year while we were preparing our budget request for FY 1992, we were aware that Congress was likely to pass the Clean Air Act Amendments and that there were proposals for an expanded role for NIEHS. We had developed several planning documents identifying health research needs in the basic biomedical sciences, in toxicology, and in epidemiology consistent with the drafts of the proposed legislation which were publicly available. The bill was passed in October and signed into law on November 15, 1990. Consequently, it was not until late November that we knew exactly what was expected of us. By that time, it was too late to make any major revisions in our budget request. RESEARCH MANPOWER Mr. Early: Doctor, what is your assessment of the current research manpower situation in the area of environmental health? Dr. Hoel: There are needs for training in both clinical and basic areas of environmental health. On the basic side of the research manpower situation, continued and expanded training efforts are critical since exciting advances are being made in understanding the nature of deleterious interactions between human systems and environmental agents. The field of molecular biology has opened up new routes of investigation from biomarkers for determining individual chemical exposures to new theories on specific receptors which might link cause and effect from these exposures. Appropriately trained scientists are needed to pursue these leads. Mr. Early: What about the knowledge of health care providers with respect to environmental health, and air pollution in particular? Dr. Hoel: On the clinical side, it is important that physicians recognize symptoms of environmentally caused diseases. For example, air pollution can cause a variety of respiratory and other responses in all segments of the population, and it is important that the primary care physician know the causal relationships. With the objective of educating doctors about environmentally and occupationally induced diseases, we have initiated a program to develop this area in medical school curricula. The program is off to a good start in that applications from almost a third of the United States medical schools were received and reviewed resulting in 8 awards this year. Mr. Early: How do the Institute's research training and research career programs address these areas? Dr. Hoel: The NIEHS training and career programs are comprised of individual and institutional National Research Service Awards and career awards for physicians to engage in basic or clinical research in environmental health. These awards support trainees, fellows and clinicians for Ph.D. or postdoctoral training in determining health effects from environmental exposures. Areas covered are toxicology, pathology, mutagenesis, epidemiology and clinical research. The field is moving rapidly toward a better understanding of how chemicals and other environmental factors affect human health and how to better test and estimate the hazards from such materials, and up-to-date training is critical to advances in these areas. Mr. Early: What additional steps need to be taken in order to improve this situation? Dr. Hoel: The NIEHS programs are at a reasonable, steady state to support such efforts in Ph.D. training and we are excited about our new initiative involving medical school curricula development. A high priority area for the Institute is the growth of this Environmental/Occupational Medicine Academic Award to involve a significant number of the nation's medical schools, including minority institutions. We are spending approximately $1 million on this area in FY 1992. AVERAGE COST OF GRANT Mr. Early: What is the average increase in the size of noncompeting and new and competing research project grants under the budget proposal? Dr. Hoel: Under the FY 1992 budget proposal the increase for noncompeting continuation awards is 2.4% and for new and competing continuation research projects grants it is 5.8%. Overall the increase is 3.3%. DOWNWARD NEGOTIATION RATE Dr. Hoel: In FY 1989 and FY 1990 staff negotiated competing awards downward by the average adjustment of 11.8% and 12.5%, respectively. Dr. Hoel: In FY 1991 we are responding to the requirements of the NIH Financial Management Plan, which calls for adjustments based on closely scrutinizing individual cost items. Although an overall adjustment of 14.5% from recommended levels is indicated, the average size of a grant will Dr. Hoel: In FY 1989 and FY 1990 staff negotiated noncompeting continuation awards downward by the average adjustment to full cost rate of Mr. Early: Doesn't this institutionalize the large downward negotiations Dr. Hoel: The trend in the past few years does tend to institutionalize Mr. Dr. Hoel: Based on current projections and programmatic adjustments made AWARD RATES Mr. Early: What percentage of new and competing grants will the Institute fund under the FY 1992 budget request, and how does this compare to FY 1991 and FY 1990? Dr. Hoel: It is estimated that the award rate for FY 1992 will be approximately 26%. rate was 29.8%. In FY 1991 this rate was 24.8% and in FY 1990 the award Mr. Early: How does this compare to the award rate of 5 years ago and 10 years ago? Dr. Hoel: As compared to the FY 1992 budget proposal, the award rate 5 years prior, in FY 1987, was 32.1% and 10 years ago, in FY 1982, it was 38.0%. Mr. Early: SUCCESS RATE What is the projected "success rate" and how does this compare to FY 1991 and FY 1990, 5 years ago, and 10 years ago? Dr. Hoel: It is estimated that the success rate for FY 1992 will be 25.7%. In FY 1991 the success rate was 24.2% and in FY 1990 the rate was 28.3%. As compared to the FY 1992 budget proposal, the success rate 5 years prior, in FY 1987, was 28.5% and 10 years ago, in FY 1982, it was 25.3%. QUALITY OF APPLICATIONS Mr. Early: How would you characterize the quality of research applications the Institute is receiving today and what kinds of comparisons would you make to prior years? Dr. Hoel: The quality is very good. The nature of research on how chemicals and other environmental factors affect health has become increasingly sophisticated over recent years, as we have learned that things are not as simple as we first believed. This is the usual nature of science. However, new tools and techniques have provided the means to test new hypotheses and theories which are moving us toward a better understanding of how and why environmental agents cause diseases. This has reemphasized the need for interdisciplinary efforts in this field and has supported our efforts toward multifaceted approaches as supported by program projects and centers. Although complexity always involves increased costs, we appreciate the need for the use of tools of modern science to learn to predict and thus prevent disease outbreaks from environmental exposures. Because of this change in the nature of the approach to studying health effects of environmental agents, it is difficult to compare the "quality" of today's applications with those in previous years. However, the applications we see do reflect an expansion in the scientific disciplines being brought to bear on these problems, and we view that as an important shift. Mr. Early: To what payline percentile will the Institute be able to fund under the budget request and how does this compare to FY 1991 and FY 1990? Dr. Hoel: The percentile payline was the 31st percentile in FY 1990 and the 29th percentile in FY 1991. It is estimated that the payline will to be the 30th percentile in FY 1992. RESEARCH CENTERS Mr. Early: What is the average increase in a center grant under the budget request and how was the size of this increase determined? Dr. Hoel: Under the FY 1992 budget proposal the average increase of a center is 2.51 over FY 1991. This was deemed an appropriate increase in order to pursue the various priorities and opportunities contained in the FY 1992 budget. Mr. Early: What was the level of downward negotiations in the centers program in FY 1989 and FY 1990 and what is the estimate for FY 1991? Dr. Hoel: The level of downward negotiation for centers was 8.5% in FY 1989 and 9.0% in FY 1990. Program adjustments approximating 12% are indicated for FY 1991. Mr. Early: Will SHERS be able to fund noncompeting centers at commitment levels under the budget request and competing centers at the peer reviewed levels? Dr. Hoel: Due to a cap on the size of the centers which was instituted a ramber of years ago, these grants have not increased in size, but the number of centers has increased in response to new opportunities and initiatives. Since the amount of funds available has not kept pace with these emerging opportunities, some adjustment to the noncompeting centers will be required. Through aggressive implementation of the financial management plan and preapplication discussions with applicants and through cost analysis by reviewers we hope be able to fund competing centers at the peer reviewed levels. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Mr. Early: How does the NIEHS plan to administer the Financial Management Plan with respect to research project grants and how do you plan to stay within the parameters that have been set? Dr. Hoel: The Plan for the Containment of the Costs of Biomedical Research calls for a limit to the increases of the costs of competing research project grants of not more than the BRDPI. That means that the costs of a pool of competing grants funded from one year to the next will increase by no more than that index. This will be accomplished by several means including the individual determination and cost analysis of the proper resources to support individual projects; the selection of individual grants based on |